Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 17-7094 Final EIR part A attachment'o Attachment 1A Attachment 1A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLAN HERMOSA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2015081009 Prepared for. - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Prepared by MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1 KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 1150 OAKLAND, CA 94612 Revised August 2017 Attachment 1A Attachment 1A TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR................................................:.........,.............................. 2.0-1 1.2 Intended Uses of the EIR.............................................................................................................. 2.0-1 1.3 Organization and Scope of the Final EIR................................................................................ 2,0-2 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2.1 Introduction...................................................................................:..............:......................... ..... 2.0-1 2.2 Commenter List............................................................................................................................. 2.0-1 2.3 Comments and Responses.........................................................................................................2.0-2 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3.1 Introduction......................................................................................:....:......................:..:..:........... 3.0-1 3.2 Revisions to the Draft EIR..................,,......................................................................................... 3.0-1 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.1 Mitigation Montoring Program ........................................ ........................................................... 4.0-1 4.2 Monitoring Authority and Enforcement Responsibility.... ...................................................... 4.0-1 4.3 Mitigation Compliance Responsiblity........... ............................................................................ 4.0-1 4.4 General Monitoring Procedures....................................................,........................................4.0-1 4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Table ...................... . 4.0-2 APPENDICES ADDED TO APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT (ON CD) Appendix Al - Hermosa Beach Market Analysis Appendix A2 - Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise Appendix B 1 - Natural Resources Appendix B2 - Special -Status Species Appendix Bb - Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix B7 - City of Hermosa Beach 2013-2021 Housing Element APPENDIX H (TRIBAL CONSULTATION) City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa Revised March 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report Attachment 1A LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill Americans with Disabilities Act ADA Caltrans CEQA California Department of Transportation California Environmental Quality Act CHR California Historical Resource EIR environmental impact report GHG greenhouse gas HCM Highway Capacity Manual kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hour JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County LID Low Impact Development LOS level of service mgd million gallons per day MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program MW megawatt NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OPR California Governor's Office of Planning and Research PCH Pacific Coast Highway REC renewable energy certificate SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison TIS Traffic Impact Study VMT vehicle miles traveled PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised March 2017 Attachment 1A 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The City of Hermosa Beach (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed PLAN Hermosa (SCH No.2015081009), which includes the implementation of a citywide General Plan and Local Coastal Program (proposed project). The City has the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR The following is an overview of the environmental review process for the proposed project that led to the preparation of this Final EIR. NOTICE OF PREPARATION A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was issued August 7, 2015. The NOP was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments. These comment letters are included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. A scoping meeting was held on August 18, 2015. The review period for the NOP ended on September 8, 2015. DRAFT EIR A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was posted on the City's website and distributed to interested parties on October 26, 2016. The Draft EIR was released for public and agency review for a 72-day review period ending on January 5, 2017. The Planning Commission held a hearing on November 21, 2016, to receive comments on the Draft EIR. Comments received during the public review period are addressed in this Final EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. The Draft EIR was provided to interested public agencies and the public and was made available for review at City offices and on the City's website. FINAL EIR The City received comment letters from public agencies and the public regarding the Draft EIR. This document responds to the comments received, as required by CEQA. As prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the lead agency (in this case, the City of Hermosa Beach) is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This Final EIR contains individual responses to each comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The City and its consultants have provided a good faith effort to respond in detail to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. This document also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This document constitutes the Final EIR. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa Revised March 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0-1 Attachment 1A 1.0 INTRODUCTION CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION This document, together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150), will comprise the Final EIR for this project. The City will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the City may certify the Final EIR. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if it: (1) shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and (2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its environmental consequences. Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to adopt, revise, or reject the proposed project. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to describe measures that have been adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. 1.2 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR The EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of PLAN Hermosa to the greatest extent possible. This EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all planning and permitting actions associated with the project. Please refer to Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for a detailed discussion of PLAN Hermosa. 1.3 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR This document is organized in the following manner: SECTION 1.0—INTRODUCTION Section 1.0 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and describes the required contents of the Final EIR. SECTION 2.0 — RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Section 2.0 includes a list of commenters, copies of written comments (coded for reference), and the responses to those written and oral comments made on the Draft EIR. SECTION 3.0 — REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Section 3.0 lists the revisions made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received and other staff -initiated changes. SECTION 4.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 4.0 provides a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the implementation of mitigation measures for PLAN Hermosa, if it is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in this EIR. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised March 2017 1.0-2 Attachment 1A 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for PLAN Hermosa (proposed project) was prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The City of Hermosa Beach is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project and has the principal responsibility for approving the project. REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the project's significant effects might be avoided or mitigated. This section also notes that commenters should include an explanation and evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect is not considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare a written response. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and must be detailed, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204). CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 recommends that where a response to comments results in revisions to the Draft EIR, those revisions be incorporated as a revision to the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR are incorporated as Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. There were numerous comments from individuals concerning PLAN Hermosa itself, with particular emphasis on carbon neutrality. Comments on PLAN Hermosa that are not germane to the analysis of environmental impacts do not require detailed responses in this Final EIR, as provided under CEQA. However, general responses are included for completeness and to inform the decision - making process. Comments that provide suggestions or questions regarding goals and policies in PLAN Hermosa are presented for consideration in a separate document and will be included in staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.2 COMMENTER LIST The following commenters submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. The comment period for the Draft EIR began October 27, 2016, and ended January 5, 2017. Confirmation of lead agency compliance with CEQA for public review of the Draft EIR was received from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research on October 26, 2016. ..�. ..... .-.... �' � � t�ri .. - �'H� _ Attachment 1A Letter Code Commenter Date Agencies CALTRANS California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 December 20, 2016 CSDLAC County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County January 5, 2017 NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission December 21, 2016 CLAFD County of Los Angeles Fire Department November 16, 2016 Tribes GBMI Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians October 30, 2016 Individuals ADLS Steve Adler November 24, 2016 BARP Peggy Barr November 17, 2016 BERC Claudia Berman January 2, 2017 FORR Robert Fortunato November 21, 2016 GRED David Grethen November 21, 2016 KRUA Arthur Krugler December 4, 2016 MORG G & J Moriyama November 19, 2016 MOWB Bette Mower November 18, 2016 PAU Jens Palsberg November 20, 2016 SARK Ken Sarno November 2, 2016 SCHH Heather Schneider December 2, 2016 TATP1 Pam Tatreau December 5, 2016 TATP2 Pam Tatreau December 31, 2016 TUTC Coco Larson -Tuttle December 12, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting PUBM Transcript from Planning Commission Public Hearing on Draft EIR November 21, 2016 2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments in table form at the end of this section. Attachment 1A AGENCIES Attachment 1A 1' CALIF RN! .I FO RNIASI'Al'r,'I'RAUSPOR-1-Al'l()NAGEN(7YBROWN Aftnrhmonf 1A - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7-OFFICE OF REGIONAL PLANNING 100 S. MAIN S'YREET. MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-8391 FAX (213) 897-1337 www.dot.ca.gov December 20, 2016 Mr. Ken Robertson City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: PLAN Hermosa, General Plan & Local Coastal Program Vic. LA-01/PM 20.60 to 21.88 SCH # 2015081009 Ref. IGR /CEQA No. 150812EA-NOP GTS # LA-2016-00256AL-DEIR Dear Mr. Robertson: 401 Serious Drought. Help save waler! Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The City is updating the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program, locally referred to as PLAN Hermosa. The City plans to accommodate an additional 300 dwelling units and 630,400 square feet of non- residential development between 2015 and 2040. On page 4.14-32, when using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, The City should refer the project's traffic consultant to OPR's website, guidelines on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA where significant threshold is identified. CALTRANS-1 https://www.opr.ca.gov/docstRevised_VMT_CEQA Guidelines_ Proposal_ January 20_2016.pdf On page 4.14-33 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the impact criteria for signalized intersection under Caltrans jurisdiction are shown in Table 4.14-19 (Caltrans Signalized CALTRANS-2 Intersection Impact Criteria). The threshold in the Table is incorrect. Please consult with Caltrans for further assistance. On page 4.14-39, "...Caltrans' plan to remove a travel lane in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway, as well as a major change in roadway characteristics, east to west, from Artesia Boulevard to Gould Avenue." On the same page, "Opportunities for physical mitigations are limited by Caltrans' plan to remove a travel lane in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway and improvement plans for the intersection included in the Aviation Boulevard Master Plan, including enhanced crosswalks and repurposing of public right-of-way for parkettes, pedestrian space, or a crossing refuge." Both statements need to provide reference for Caltrans verification. Any proposed mitigation on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) must be submitted to Caltrans for approval. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" CALTRANS-3 Mr. Ken Robertson December 20, 2016 Page 2 Attachment 1A Caltrans suggests the following new policies to the PLAN Hermosa General Plan & Local Coastal Program. • The City will involve Caltrans in the update of the existing Transportation Impact Fee program that would include the State transportation systems and facilities. (if any) • The City will work with Caltrans to identify cumulative impact locations on State facilities and traffic improvements to alleviate traffic congestion within the Specific Plan area. • The City will work with neighboring Cities to address cumulative significant traffic impact on I-405 and SR-01. • The City will work with Caltrans to evaluate access management needs and strategies to better manage traffic operations on arterial streets located within close proximity of freeway on/off-ramps in an effort to reduce traffic backups and frictions at Caltrans transportation systems. Caltrans encourages the City to work with neighboring developing cities to resolve any cumulative significant traffic impacts on the State facilities from other cities' development. Please be reminded that any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Any modifications to State facilities must meet all mandatory design standard and specifications. Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water. Additionally, discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities without any storm water management plan. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways, will require a transportation permit from Caltrans. It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to GTS # LA-2016-00256AL-DEIR. Sincerely, DIANNA WATSON IGR/CEQA Branch Chief cc: email to Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" CALTRANS-4 CALTRANS-5 e ENT Attachment 1A COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-7411, FAX: (562) 699-5422 www.locsd.org Mr. Ken Robertson, Director Community Development Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Robertson: GRACE ROBINSON HYDE Chief Engineer and General Manager January 5, 2017 Ref. Doc. No.: 3923874 Response to DEIR for the PLAN Hermosa: City of Hermosa Reach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject project on October 31, 2016. The City of Hermosa Beach is located within the jurisdictional boundary of the South Bay Cities Sanitation District. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: The Districts own; operate, and maintain the large trunk sewers that form the backbone of the regional wastewater conveyance system. Local collector and/or lateral sewer lines are the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which they are located. As such, the Districts cannot comment on any deficiencies in the sewerage system in the City of Hermosa Beach (City) except to state that presently no deficiencies exist in Districts' facilities that serve the City. For information on deficiencies in the City sewerage system, please contact the City Department of Public Works and/or the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 2. The Districts should review individual developments within the City in order to determine whether or not sufficient trunk sewer capacity exists to serve each project and if Districts' facilities will be affected by the project. The wastewater generated by the City is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average flow of 254.1 mgd. In order to estimate the volume of wastewater a project will generate, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link for a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors. CSDLAC-1 The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System or for increasing CSDLAC-2 the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is DOC: 94003157.SBCD In Recycled Paper t4f Attachment 1A Mr. Ken Robertson -2- January 5, 2017 a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate proposed projects. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and search for the appropriate link. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts' Chief Engineer will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel or facilities on the parcel. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. 6. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717. Ve truly yours, driana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department AR:ar DOC: H4003157.SBCD CS DLAC-2 cont. CS DLAC-3 Attachment 1A STATEDF_CALIi=ORNIA. Ed_m_und Q, I3mwn Jr_. Q=rnor. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 373-3710 Fax (916) 373-5471 Email: nahc@nahc.ca.aov Website: httpAvww.nahc_ca. @C Twitter: A NAHC Ken Robertson City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 December 21, 2016 sent via e-mail: krobertson @ hermosabch.org Re: SCH92015081009, PLAN Hermosa: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update Project, City of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California Dear Mr. Robertson: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project referenced above. The review included the Project Description and Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, prepared by the City of Hermosa Beach. We have the following concerns: • There is no Tribal Cultural Resources section or subsection in the Executive Summary as per California Natural Resources Agency (2016) "Final Text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form," ht1p:Hresources.ca.00v/cega/docslab52/Clean-final-AB-52-App-Q-tey_$ubmitted,pcIf • There are no mitigation measures specifically addressing Tribal Cultural Resources separately. Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AB-52, with or without consultation occurring. • There is no documentation of government -to -government consultation by the lead agency under SB-18 or AB-52 with Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area as required by statute, or that mitigation measures were developed in consultation with the tribes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)', specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.2 If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared.3 In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52).4 AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a separate category for "tribal cultural resources"5, that now includes "a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environments Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.' Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 19668 may also apply. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws. Pub. Resources Code § 21000 at seq. z Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., ti1.14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) ' Pub. Resources Code § 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (a)(1) 'Government Code 65352.3 s Pub. Resources Code § 21074 6 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2 Pub. Resources Code § 91084.3 (a) e 154 U.S.C. 300101. 36 C.F.R. § 800 et seq. NAHC-1 Attachment 1A Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: hnWItnahc.ca.gov/re$,gq qe /, forms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online at tttp:llnahc.ca.govlwp-contentluploadsl201 5/1UTAR52TribalConsultation � qlEPAPDjl pri+, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices". The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached. Please contact me at gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov or call (916) 373-3710 if you have any questions Sincerely, V`r5 G yl tton, B.S., M.A., Ph.D sociate Governmental Project Analyst Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse NAHC-1 cont. Attachment 1A Pertinent Statutory Information: Under AB 52; AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project Is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.9 and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental Impact report. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18).10 The following topics of consultation, If a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects." 1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be Included In the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.13 If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that maybe agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.14 Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, If a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached,15 Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable.16 If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b) 17 An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. ° Pub. Resourcces Corte § 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (a) so Pub. Resources Coda § 21080.$A (b) Pub. Resotnes Cope § 21080.3.2 (a) ON Pub. Resources Code § 210BD.8.2 (a) " Pub. Resources Code § 21 D82.3 (c)(1) " Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b) 15 Pub. Sesoircee Code § 21 DB0.3.2 (b) "'Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a) 11 Pub, Resources Code ¢ 21082.3 (0) n-o I Attachment 1A c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.16 This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. Under SB 18: Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of "preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open -space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code. • SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: http§II#www.opr.cagov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.odf • Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.19 • There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research'20 the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22 NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments: Contact the NAHC for: o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. ■ The request form can be found at hgp;llnattc.ra,.gov/resources/forms/. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center ("tt _H9hp.parks.ca.gav/?page id=l068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. o If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. B Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d) 9 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a)(2)). 20 pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, 21 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)). 22 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). 4 ... � �.r. - .. ':H �. Attachment 1A Examplesf M)a<igatfon fJl�asures i ha;_May Be Cnneidered tv Ava ar M F xe 5! niffcant Adv Im cte to TrI al Cultural Resources: o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: ■ Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. ■ Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: ■ Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. Protecting the traditional use of the resource. ■ Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non -federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed: 3 o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated.24 The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Load agencles should Include in their mltlgation and monitoring reporting nrogram�l_a_n p_p'sio_.rts for e Identiflcatlon rd ayaluata_ ton of in ve e d archa ere _ usn rces In areas of Idenfif led archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground -disturbing activities. o Lead cies shouE i fud it mit' ati and monitvrin re o 'ng program plans provisions for the dlsposltion of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans, o LeencJes should Include In their mlllgation and monitoring reporting pro gram .plans provisions for_#he eat ent and d1sMitlon of inn dvertengkr cf sc vored_Natiye American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.90, and Cal. Code Flegs., tit, 14, section 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds, (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. f (Civ. Code § 815.3 (c)). r (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991) 25 per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(1) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.50)). 5 .�0111, R� �0 Ville" ` l r' z ., � unman*.,• b�AARTI�tit DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN November 16, 2016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 Ken Robertson, Director City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Ken Robertson: Attachment "CEIVED, I� I01.11 12 1 7019 COMMUNITY DEV NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND PUBLIC MEETING, "PLAN HERMOSA: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE", IT HAS INITIATED A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM TO UPDATE ITS GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, IT REQUIRES EACH CITY TO ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE, LONG TERM GENERAL PLAN FOR ITS PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, CITYWIDE-HERMOSA BEACH FFER 201600178 The notice of availability of a draft environmental impact report has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: The subject property is entirely within the City of Hermosa Beach, which is not a part of the emergency response area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (also known as the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County). Therefore, this CLAFD-1 project does not appear to have any impact on the emergency responsibilities of this Department. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS BRADBURY CUDAHY HAWiHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS TEMPLE CITY BELL CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES WALNUT BELL GARDENS COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WEST HOLLYWOOI BELLFLOWER COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA•FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WESTLAKE VILLAG SANTACLARITA WHITTIER Attachment 1A Ken Robertson, Director November 16, 2016 Page 2 LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: This project is located entirely in the City of Hermosa Beach. Therefore the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department has jurisdiction concerning this project and will be setting conditions. This project is located in close proximity to the jurisdictional area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. However this project is unlikely to have an impact that necessitates a comment concerning general requirements from the Land Development Unit of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department - Land Development Unit's, Inspector Nancy Rodeheffer at (323) 890-4243. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: CLAFD-1 cont. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, CLAFD-2 vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has + CLAFD-3 no comment regarding the project at this time. I If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 8904330. Very truly yours, KEVIN T. JOHNSON, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU KTJ:ac Attachment 1A This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1A AGENCIES Comment # Response California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) CALTRANS-1 The commenter recommends that the City refer to the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines for vehicle miles traveled analysis in CEQA. The OPR website and guidelines regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis in CEQA documents were reviewed in conjunction with the preparation of the project's Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Draft EIR (pp. 4.14-19 through 4.14-20) summarizes how Senate Bill (SB) 743 will change the way in which transportation impacts may be evaluated by jurisdictions. While the VMT analysis in the EIR is consistent with draft guidelines being prepared by OPR in response to SB 743, its implementation is still evolving and has not yet been incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines. As such, the City of Hermosa Beach does not have adopted thresholds for evaluating a project's VMT. Because the recommendations for new analysis metrics and thresholds of significance are still under development by OPR, the VMT metrics presented in the City's Draft EIR are for informational purposes, as noted on page 4.14-32 in the Draft EIR, and the City has relied on adopted level of service (LOS) standards to determine potential impacts. CALTRANS-2 This comment references Table 4.14-19 (Caltrans Signalized Intersection Impact Criteria), which is on page 4.14-34 in the Draft EIR. The table identifies three impact thresholds. The comment states that the threshold in the table is incorrect, but does not indicate which threshold is incorrect. Per Caltrans' TIS guidelines, Caltrans intersections along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the study area were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. While Caltrans' TIS guidelines provide screening criteria to determine whether a TIS is needed, its guidance does not include criteria to determine whether the project's trip generation should be considered "significant" under CEQA. For purposes of the Draft EIR analysis, PLAN Hermosa would create a significant impact at a signalized intersection if it causes the intersection to degrade to LOS D, E, or F from LOS C or above. The City, as the CEQA lead agency, worked with its traffic consultant to establish the thresholds used in the Draft EIR, which are consistent with standards used in other recent environmental documents in the city, including the TIS for the E&B Oil Development Project EIR. CALTRANS-3 The City and its project consultants selected a project evaluation scenario for the Caltrans intersections along the PCH that included lane repurposing consistent with the policies and objectives in PLAN Hermosa and that would document the potential impacts of substantial modifications to the intersections' operating capacity. Specific information for each intersection is included in Appendix G in the Draft EIR, based on the master planning documents available at the time of the analysis. The plans referred to are still under development. Caltrans has not yet completed its Project Study Report for improvements to the PCH, so no formal reference is available for that plan. However, the Request for Programming is available at: http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5706. Attachment 1A AGENCIES Comment # Response The Aviation Boulevard Master Plan is also under development. Documentation of a public meeting for the project's early conceptualization is available at: http://hermosobeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=2462& meta id=126846. As noted on page 4.14-39 in the Draft EIR, PLAN Hermosa would contribute to significant impacts at the intersections of the PCH with Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard. Opportunities for physical mitigations (by the City) are limited by alignment issues, Caltrans' plans for the PCH intersections noted in planning documents, and inconsistency with local adopted plans. For those reasons, there is no feasible mitigation available to the City to mitigate PLAN Hermosa impacts, and the City is not proposing any specific mitigation for PCH intersections at this time. However, the City will continue to work with Caltrans in the context of the PSR and future engineering studies when specific projects are advanced. CALTRANS-4 The commenter suggests four additional policies be added to PLAN Hermosa. The suggested policies address coordination between the City and Caltrans concerning state facilities, as well as the City's transportation impact fee program. The suggested policies do not propose specific measures that, if implemented, would further reduce transportation network impacts identified in the Draft EIR. PLAN Hermosa actions include substantial implementation of Transportation Demand Management measures that are expected to reduce the expected growth in traffic compared with the 2040 without PLAN Hermosa scenario. Therefore, cumulative impacts on both local and state facilities will be reduced. It is not clear from the comment how the suggested policies would further reduce these impacts. However, the commenter's suggested changes are provided in a separate document and will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider their incorporation into PLAN Hermosa. CALTRANS-5 PLAN Hermosa does not propose any specific projects that would directly affect state roadways or drainage systems, nor would it result in the movement of goods requiring a Caltrans transportation permit. This comment is not directed to the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. City staff acknowledges Caltrans requirements, and the City would be responsible for ensuring private or public projects that may be developed in the city comply with applicable design standards and permitting. Additionally, the City's Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance, green streets policy, Enhanced Watershed Management Plan, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit ensure stormwater is controlled, which is explained in greater detail in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.8-8. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County CSDLAC-1 This is an informational comment about the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County wastewater collection and treatment system. It is not specifically directed to the analysis in the Draft EIR, but does include information about capacity and flows. City staff reviewed the description of facilities in the Draft EIR 4.13-32 and 4.13-39 relative to the information presented in the comment Attachment 1A AGENCIES Comment # Response and did not find any discrepancies, with one minor exception. The Draft EIR (p. 4.13-32) reported an average flow of 263.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (based on information provided by the district in its Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter [Draft EIR Appendix B]), while this comment indicates an average flow of 254.1 mgd, presumably reflecting more current information. This discrepancy does not affect the conclusion in the Draft EIR about impacts on wastewater facilities, because the capacity of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant remains at 400 mgd, and the more current information reflects a decrease in average flow, meaning the plant is further away from reaching capacity than was previously presented. However, the Draft EIR has been revised with this information (see Chapter3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). With regard to comment 4 in the letter, the flows presented in the Draft EIR (p. 4.13-39) were calculated by district staff and provided in its NOP comment letter. CSDLAC-2 This is an informational comment about the district's sewerage fee program. It does not address the analysis in the Draft EIR. CSDLAC-3 This comment notes that the future capacity of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant is based on the regional growth forecast prepared and adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and therefore capacity of the plant is limited to the approved growth identified by SCAG. As described in Draft EIR Section 4.12, Population, Housing, and Employment, the City of Hermosa Beach provided input to SCAG in the preparation of the Regional Growth Forecast adopted as part of the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan on the population, household, and employment buildout proposed under PLAN Hermosa, and SCAG accepted that input in full, making the local and regional growth forecasts identical for growth by the year 2040. Based on the flow estimates provided by the district in its NOP comment letter, PLAN Hermosa's contribution to the wastewater system would represent less than an additional 0.1 percent contribution to flows to the system. This increase would have a negligible impact on system capacity (Draft EIR p. 4.13-39). Native American Heritage Commission NAHC-1 The Draft EIR fully evaluated potential impacts on tribal cultural resources in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. The City of Hermosa Beach has also complied with Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation requirements. The Executive Summary document provided to the NAHC by the State Clearinghouse included a CD containing the Draft EIR, which contains the specific information the commenter asserts was missing from the EIR. As stated in the Draft EIR (p. 4.4-1), information for the analysis in the Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR was based on a technical report titled Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report to support PLAN Hermosa, prepared by PCR Services Corporation and included in the Draft EIR as Appendix C-7. The assessment included an archaeological resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC), and a Sacred Lands File search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), among other items (Draft EIR p. 4.4-1). Attachment 1A AGENCIES Comment # Response The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-5) described the requirements for SB 18 and AB 52 tribal consultation requirements and how the City has complied with those requirements. In August 2014, the City received information from the NAHC pursuant to SB 18 indicating a search of the results of a Sacred Lands File search and the names of tribal representatives. As stated on page 4.4-5, the City requested consultation with Native American tribes in compliance with SB 18 in January 2015, and again under AB 52 in August 2015. In addition to the tribal consultation process, the City has sent notifications to each of the listed tribal organizations offering opportunities to comment on the NOP and the Draft EIR. Copies of all communications with the NAHC and the tribal organizations listed by the NAHC in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52 requirements have been provided in a new Appendix H added to the Final EIR. The documents in Appendix H are confidential to comply with AB 52 and protect the confidential information provided by California Native American Tribes. They are included in the administrative record for the EIR and are on file with the City of Hermosa Beach. The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation have requested that an experienced, trained, and certified Native American monitor be on -site during any ground -disturbing activities related to subsequent projects. It should be noted that PLAN Hermosa is a program level document that will not directly result in physical changes to the environment since there is no evidence of a substantial impact and we cannot speculate what types of projects will be proposed under the General Plan, revisions to the implementation actions are appropriate to respond to tribe's concerns. The Draft EIR (Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 on pp. 4.4-10 through 4.4-12) evaluated the potential for implementation of PLAN Hermosa to adversely affect Native American resources and human remains. As stated on page 4.4-11, no known archaeological resources (historic or prehistoric) have been recorded within the city. The Draft EIR noted that these findings, however, do not preclude the possibility of encountering undiscovered archaeological resources during construction, given the proven prehistoric and historic occupation of the region, the identification of surface and subsurface archaeological resources near the PLAN Hermosa planning area (e.g., Old Salt Lake and CA-LAN-1872), and the favorable natural conditions (e.g., Pacific Ocean) that would have attracted prehistoric and historic inhabitants to the area. The archaeological monitoring of numerous construction projects throughout the region in recent decades has demonstrated the existence of deeply buried archaeological deposits, especially in locations of rapid Holocene deposition such as alluvial fans. The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-12) also noted that the discovery of Native American human remains, including cases of multiple burials, is not uncommon in the region (e.g., Malaga Cove). The City concluded impacts would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures because PLAN Hermosa includes a comprehensive policy - based approach for determining whether tribal resources or remains may be present in an area in which ground disturbance could occur and how potential impacts would be mitigated. For example, implementation action LAND USE-23 (Draft EIR p. 4.4-10) directs that the City require archaeological investigations for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations, for areas not previously surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural Attachment 1A AGENCIES Comment # Response resources. As part- of the implementation action, the City will require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance. The Draft EIR (pp. 4.4-11 through 4.4-12) explained how this process would work: an initial archaeological study (Phase I Assessment), at a minimum, would consist of the following tasks to identify known archaeological resources in a given project site: a cultural resources records search through the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, a pedestrian survey of the project site, a review of the land use history, and coordination with knowledgeable organizations or individuals (e.g., Hermosa Beach Historical Society, Native American tribes). If warranted, additional analyses such as archaeological test excavations and/or remote sensing methods would be implemented to identify resources. To more explicitly address tribal requests for a Native American monitor to be present during ground -disturbing activities, the City proposes amending implementation action LAND USE-21 as follows (new text underlined): LAND USE -21, All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on previously undisturbed_ land shall be reauired to conduct archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA regulations to determine if the project is sensitive for cultural resources. Additionally, as the Lead Aaency for future discreflonaa proiects,the City is reauired under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed oro]ects and offer to consult with those tribal organizations that indicafe interest. Following any tribal consultation or archaeological investigatian,_the_ City shall weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a aoiential risk for dist urbing or dg maging a ny cultural or tri bol resources and whether any precautionary measures can be reauired to reduce or eliminate: that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to complete training on arc h❑ olo ical and tribal res urces before any around disturbance activity and/or requiring a aualifie_d archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the around disturbance activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance. County of Los Angeles Fire Department CLAFD-1 The commenter states PLAN Hermosa does not appear to have any impact on the emergency responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The comment does not affect the conclusions in the Draft EIR concerning fire protection impacts (Impact 4.13.2-1 [pp. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8] in Section 4.13, Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities). Attachment 1A AGENCIES Comment # Response CLAFD-2 This commenter states the statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Forestry Division. The comment does not address the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. CLAFD-3 The commenter states that the Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department has no comments at this time. Attachment 1A TRIBES Attachment 1A ..i • . .. - .. - . Attachment 1A Subject: Plan Hermosa- City of Hermosa Beach Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Sun 10/30/2016 1:59 PM To Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; `cMatt Teutimez.Kizh Gabrieleno ; Christina Swindall ; Henrypedregon ; Gary Stickel ( 2 attachments (737 KB) IMG_4746jpg; Subject- Plan Hermosa- City of Hermosa Beach Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update .docx; please see atatchment Sincerely, Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 ----------------------- cell: (626)926-4131 email: gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com website: www.gabrielenoindians.org On October 30, 2016 the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation submitted a letter on the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update regarding their ancestral and traditional territories that overlap with the City of Hermosa Beach Boundaries and requested that a tribal monitor is present during any ground disturbance activities associated with the project. The letter provided by the tribe may be found in Appendix H, which is on record with the City of Hermosa Beach, but kept confidential to comply with AB 52 and protect the confidential information provided by California Native American Tribes. Attachment 1A This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1A TRIBES Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Comment # Response GBMI-1 The commenter summarizes information about the ancestral and traditional territories of the Kizh villages such as Engnovangan, and has included an excerpt from a 1978 publication about the Gabrieleno. The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-2) notes the significance of this village in Hermosa Beach. The Draft EIR (Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 on pp. 4.4-10 through 4.4-12) evaluated the potential for implementation of PLAN Hermosa to adversely affect Native American resources and human remains. As stated on page 4.4-1 1, no known archaeological resources (historic or prehistoric) have been recorded within the city. The Draft EIR noted that these findings, however, do not preclude the possibility of encountering undiscovered archaeological resources during construction, given the proven prehistoric and historic occupation of the region, the identification of surface and subsurface archaeological resources near the PLAN Hermosa planning area (e.g., Old Salt Lake and CA-LAN-1872), and the favorable natural conditions (e.g., Pacific Ocean) that would have attracted prehistoric and historic inhabitants to the area. In addition to the specific examples cited by the commenter for a project in Los Angeles and Hawaiian Gardens, the archaeological monitoring of numerous construction projects throughout the region in recent decades has demonstrated the existence of deeply buried archaeological deposits, especially in locations of rapid Holocene deposition such as alluvial fans. The Draft EIR (p. 4.4-12) also noted that the discovery of Native American human remains, including cases of multiple burials, is not uncommon in the region (e.g., Malaga Cove). As noted in response NAHC-1, the City is proposing to amend implementation action LAND USE-21 to more explicitly detail the tribal consultation process and include direction as to when a Native American monitor would be required to be present on -site during ground disturbance activities. This implementation action, as amended, would ensure the consultation requirements of AB 52 are followed by the City as the lead agency and that requirements are clear related to the presence of Native American monitors during ground -disturbing activities in which a tribe or archaeological investigation indicate the potential for tribal resources to be found. GBMI-2 As described on page 4.4-5 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, in the Draft EIR, the City requested consultation with Native American tribes in compliance with SB 18 in January 2015 and again under AB 52 in August 2015. The City notified all of the relevant tribal organizations identified by the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of Hermosa Beach. In a letter dated May 19, 2014, the NAHC provided a list of the tribes that claim traditional or cultural affiliation with the area surrounding Hermosa Beach, including the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians, and Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. All of the groups identified by the NAHC will continue to be notified of projects in Hermosa Beach and offered an opportunity to consult with the City in accordance with AB 52. Attachment 1A This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 1A INDIVIDUALS Attachment 1A Attachment 1A Carbon Neutral steve adler Thu 11/24/2016 12:17 PM To:Leeanne Singleton < genera Iplan@hermosabch.org>; Dear Council -members Upon reviewing the general plan towards the goal of becoming "carbon neutral" I am pleased that you have taken a thoughtful approach to this endeavor. However, after my review I find this far beyond the scope of your elected positions to ratify any part of this proposal without asking the community for permission. Additionally, I would like to know what benefit the City of Hermosa would have for being the "1 st" to be carbon neutral? 1, Do we receive tax benefits for implementing this plan? 2. Do the savings offset the expense of implementing this plan? If so, how many years will it take? ADLS 3. If there are no financial benefits to going carbon neutral why purchase carbon offsets? 4. If we have the money for carbon offsets wouldn't that money be more beneficial to the environment if we promoted worthy environmental causes? For example: we could promote the need that we as consumers actually consume less. Clearly it is better forthe environment over all to use a gasoline powered car until it no longer can be used... rather than turning the car in and purchasing an electric car. If you wish I can provide many studies that speak to over consumption with regards to autos, computers, phones etc. As stated before, I applaud all of you for undertaking this lofty goal, however, I believe many of your suggestions should be open to a vote and not dictated by our City Council. Thank you Steve Adler Attachment 1A comments on carbon neutrality Peggy Barr Thu 11/17/2016 3:44 PM ToIeeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@Imu.edu>; Rob Saemann <rsgcl@aol.com>; David Pedersen <dPedersen @hen-nosabch.org>; Councilmember Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Jeff Duclos <jduclos@hermosabch,org>; Mayor Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Mayor Pro Tern Justin Massey <jmassey@hermosabch.org>; Councilmember Stacey An-nato <sarmato@hermosabch.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabch.org>; John Jalili <j alili@hermosabch.org>; 11/17/2016 RE: Carbon Neutrality/EIR Enough is Enough! There have been 4 "studies" on the feasibility of Hermosa Beach becoming Carbon Neutral. And in October the council approved yet another $7500 for an additional study... when all of the 4 previous ones came to a similar conclusion: The only way to be Carbon Neutral is to either purchase carbon offset credits or produce renewable energy in order to offset emissions. Neither of these options is a sound management or fiscal decision. First of all, purchasing carbon offset credits (RECs) is NOT being carbon neutral {EIR 4.6-151: Just by merely purchasing RECs you can't create CLEANER energy or CLEANER air. RECs do nothing to actually lower greenhouse gases (GHG) but merely shift money from the city to the pockets of the brokers representing Carbon Neutrality or CCAs, who are usually the consultants pushing this agenda on cities. RECs are merely deals on paper that cost Hermosa Beach taxpayers more money. Secondly, producing renewable energy on our own (thru a CCA) is not sound judgement. There is no guarantee that the energy we will generate/receive will be any more renewable or CLEANER than what we already receive from SCE. SCE is currently regulated by the state and federal governments to have CLEANER/RENEWABLE energy. The most recent statistics I was able to find for SCE were from 2014 and it is required to increase yearly -in 2014 we received 27% CLEAN energy and 24% RENEWABLE. [source: 2014 Power Content Label - Southern California Edison] The actual break down looked like this: 27% is CLEAN 33% is moderately CLEAN BARP -1 BARP -2 12/5/2016 comments on carbon neutrality - Leeanne Singleton 40% is unspecified***** And 24% of this power is RENEWABLE ***** My understanding of the definition of unspecified, Attachment 1A BARP -2 includes things they can't really measure, like th 1cont, input onto the grid of the CLEAN solar power that our household and many others generate. So far I have only been addressing the Hermosa Beach City as its own entity. But if the EIR is passed tc include "community wide carbon neutrality" {EIR 6.0-9, 6.0-10) Hermosa Beach residents and taxpayer: are due to see huge increases in costs with instituting : - the establishment of greenhouse gas impact fees {EIR 4.6-16) which will drive up the cost of development -ultimately passed on to us as consumers. -the requirement to install renewable energy projects on homes and businesses, mandating retrofits to existing buildings to improve energy efficiency {EIR 4.6-13) -costing the homeowners money and again ultimately the business passing the cost onto consumers. -the elimination of the use of natural gas within the city -new modified parking standards to disincentive gasoline powered cars, making it more onerous and/or expensive to park — ultimately driving down our tax base from businesses. We cannot have these provisions hard coded as part of our General Plan, providing the foundation for future policies. If we do we are just setting ourselves up for misery, bankruptcy, a decrease in our quality of life and worst of all an infringement on personal property rights. reiterate... Enough is Enough! Please consider your decision thoroughly; it affects everyone for generations to come! Peggy Barr BARP -3 Attachment 1A PLAN Hermosa DER Comments Claudia Berman Mon 1/2/2017 141 PM To1eeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org- Here are a few comments for the PLAN Hermosa DIER related to the Carbon Neutrality topic: •Are the assumptions made on today's technology or do you factor in technological changes that may occur over the next 20+ years? It's my understanding that they are based on today's technology. Therefore, please specify that clearly upfront. •I found the comparisons between the PLAN and State requirements confusing. It would be good to have some type of table so that people can compare the PLAN options to State requirements. I did a quick table of an example. The EIR should have something like this and have a clearer statement of how we line up to the State requirements. It took me many hours to realize that PLAN Hermosa end date of 2040 is in line with California's current requirements. BERC-1 Carbon Reduction % 2005 Level 2020 2030 2040 2050 California -49 -80 Hermosa Sustainabity Project 2011 -15 PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality PLAN end date 2040 PLAN Hermosa Carbon Neutrality Goal 2 @ 2030 -66 PLAN Hermosa Project Alternative 2020 -66 Thank you, Claudia Berman Attachment 1A Plan Hermosa Meeting tonight and Palo Alto to get $1 million Robert Fortunato Mon 11/21/2016 12:32 PM TaLeeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@hermosabch.org>; Michael Flaherty <MFlaherty@hermosabch.org>; Rob Saemann <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>; Marie Rice <mrice@her inosabch.org>; David Pedersen <dpedersen@hermosabch.org>; cc City Council <citycouncil@henrnosabch.org>; Elaine Doerfling <edoerfling@hermosabch.org>; City Clerk - Would you please forward this email to the Planning commission and I ask that this email be included as a supplemental Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners and Staff, Thank you for all the good work you are doing on Plan Hermosa. I know you are aware of the importance of this plan in setting the course for the city in the coming decades. While reviewing Plan Hermosa you will inevitably get questions as to why we are pursuing a carbon neutrality goal. If health of our residents, sustainability of our environment and disaster preparedness are not compelling enough reasons, than the economics should be, Plan Hermosa was partially funded by $410K from the Strategic Growth Council because we are pursuing the goal of Carbon Neutrality. Many other initiative have been and will be funded because we differentiate ourselves from competing cities by aspiring to this Carbon Neutral goal. A recent example is the UCLA -MBA study where a group of local residents who are working toward their MBA heard about our Carbon neutral goal and are doing a business plan for our city that is conservatively valued at $160,000 for $7,500. By keeping this ambitious goal at the forefront of our consciousness, we can help the city be more efficient in its operations and better for our residents - while getting funding to help our local economy. As you can see in the email below, Palo Alto, who has a similar Carbon Neutral goal, just recently got $1 million to study how to reduce traffic. Please support an aggressive Carbon Neutral 2030 goal for our city and let me know let me know if you have any question or concerns. Respectfully, Robert Fortunato -- Forwarded message ---------- From: City of Palo Alto<cityofpaloalto@service.aovdelivery com> Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:39 PM Subject: Climate Action: Taking Our Next Big Step -- 80 x 30! To: FORR -1 NovetmVer�t1A Climate Action: Taking our Next Big Step Council Adopts 80 x 30 Palo Alto: Designing Our Goal and Framework for Path to 2030 Climate Action Plan Palo Alto has long been ahead of the pack in sustainability, The City Council adopted the adopting one of the first municipal climate action plans in the U.S. general framework of the in 2007, delivering carbon neutral electricity, and partnering with our Sustainability and Climate community to develop a vision for an innovative, carbon neutral city Action Plan (S/CAP) at its of the future. Poised to take the next step as a climate and meeting on Monday, April 18, sustainability leader - with one of the boldest municipal climate which identifies a Greenhouse goals in the country ... [Read More...] Gas Emissions reduction goal of 80 percent by 2030. [Read More] BRT Regional Consortium Wins $1 Million Federal Grant for Technology -based Commute Get Involved. S/CAP at Alternatives the next City Council One of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan's (S/CAP) key Meeting on November focus areas is to rethink mobility. Road transportation represents 28th. about 61% of Palo Alto's carbon footprint. Last month, the City of On Monday, November 28th, Palo Alto, as part of a regional consortium of stakeholders, won a the City Council will meet to $1 million federal grant for a demonstration project to reduce single- review the Sustainability and occupant vehicle driving from 75 percent to 50 percent in the Bay Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) area. [Read More and decide upon formal adoption of the plan. The agenda for the meeting will Palo Alto and Sustainability News of interest be posted here. As always, you're invited and welcome to • Governor Brown sign_inaiar c[imate_bili, requiring the slate share your perspectives Oust to reduce emissions to 40 perce!2elow 1990 levels bV 2030 be sure to fill out a comment • City of Palo Alto received the 2016 California Energy card). Efficiency Industry Council Energy�'hampion Award, in reco nition for aQopting a new Zgrg Net En r ZNE Rggoy "Reach Code". which goes into effect January 1. 2017 Share Your Priorities for • The second phase of_the Cool Block ip Eat pr9gram is_about_to 2017 with Palo Alto City get underway and additional neighborhood_blo�ks are invited Council to participate • Palo Alto and leading U.S. cities partner on guidelines for What are the priorities you smart cities to ensure the responsible and eaultable would like to see the Palo Alto deployment of smart city technologies City Council adopt in 2017? • City of Palo Alto Utilities ranks in the national top 10 for most You are invited to share your solar watts per customer thoughts on Open City Hall. [Read more • Considering Solar? Sign up now to take advantage of Palo Attachment 1A Alto's Current Net Metering program. For more timely sustainability news and updates... follow Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend on Twitter (@PaloAltoCSO The City has a variety of a -news topics that may be of interest to you. Join other a -news topics, update your subscriptions, modify your password or e- mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact subscdberhelo.govdeliverv.com. This service is provided to you at no charge by the City of Palo Alto. This email was sent to using GovDelivery, on behalf of: City of Palo Alto - 250 Hamilton Ave • Palo Powered by Alto. CA 94301 • 650- - GovDellvery Robert Fodunato President www.ForStrategy.com Our commitment to leadership, innovation and sustainability is reflected in our Green Idea House "Don't be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done" - Paul Hawken Attachment 1A HB Planninq Commission - PLAN EIR-11/21/2016 - D. Grethen (Comments in bold italics. Introductory/background info in plain text) Figure 4.6-3 is a useful way to depict state -driven carbon reduction goals and measures as related to local neutrality goals, as well as potential offsets. But the following accompanying description of may need to be even more precisely explained to be more clear to describe how the numbers add up. Per report: "As depicted in Figure 4.6-3 (Emissions Reductions Needed to Meet State and Local Targets), the impact of state legislation on local emissions in 2040 would leave a remaining gap of 48,800 MTCO2e to be reduced by local policy to achieve state goals and a remaining gap of 95,420 MTCO2e to achieve a carbon neutral goal by 2040 as proposed in the draft of PLAN Hermosa." More significantly, the following questions associated with Figure 4.6-3 should be addressed: Why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy to meet state goals? Why is state legislation insufficient to meet state goals? Is there something specific about Hermosa Beach that results in state legislation not being sufficient for Hermosa Beach to not meet state goals? These insights might help the city better understand its challenges, regulatory role, and degree of local initiative necessary to achieve carbon reduction goals. Figure 4.6-3 and its accompanying discussion also indicate the following conclusions, which could imply large environmental impacts: The city will already be significantly challenged to meet state goals through local measures beyond what will be driven by state legislation (this is indicated by the size of the blue shaded region of the figure compared to the size of the pink shaded region) The city will be greatly additionally challenged in order to achieve full carbon neutrality beyond what it must do to meet the state goals, with neutrality approximately doubling the size of the total challenge (this is apparent since the size of the green shaded region is roughly the size of the blue shaded region) The subsection underlined as "Renewable Energy Generation" on Page 4.6-21 highlights how renewable energy may be generated for local use in the following ways, some local and some remote: GRED1-1 GRED1-2 • Installations on homes and businesses (local) • Carbon neutral municipal facilities (local) • Locations appropriate for additional renewable energy technologies and to Attachment 1A "allow by right" (local) • Community choice aggregation (CCA - remote) The decision to use remotely- versus locally -generated renewable energy to achieve carbon reductions will be a large determinant of impacts to the local environment, residents, and businesses. Rough order of magnitude estimates for potential land use impacts should be provided for scenarios where municipal (and entire community) carbon reduction/neutrality goals are met by use of local solar energy to fully supply the total kW-hr energy needs every day, plus any additional renewable energy generation needed in lieu of purchasing carbon offsets (e.g. Alternative 2). The estimates should specify the following for both the municipality and entire community: Total land/mounting area to achieve municipal (and community) carbon neutrality with all electricity generated locally for solar. Total available rooftop mounting area on municipal (and community residential/business) buildings Amount of additional land/mounting area that would be needed to be provided in municipal (and community) open spaces This would provide an initial feasibility assessment for local solar and help determine whether most of the city's renewable energy is likely to be locally generated, or whether we would heavily rely on remotely located sources (e.g. via CCA). This could also provide further insight about potential local impacts such as glare and ability to preserve local city character. Additionally, it should also be identified what specific locations in the city might be "appropriate for additional renewable energy technologies" and where they might be "allowed by right" as stated on Page 4.6-21. The availability of locations would determine feasibility or whether land use modification impacts occur. The city is already well developed and rather dense. Fuel consumption Table 4.13-7 includes electric vehicle electricity use in kW-hr, as well as assumed fuel efficiencies. The basis for the electric vehicle use estimate should be supported clarified including the following: • Which corresponding level of carbon reduction this usage supports (full neutrality vs. 66% of 2005 levels • Fraction and amount of increase in the fraction of citywide vehicles that are GRED1-2 cont. GRED1-3 :..� � ri: �.. - Attachment 1A electric (extent of gasoline vehicle replacement assumed or needed) Anything else that might better relate this table to the GHG Section 4.6 of EIR These estimates would help to better understand the amount of supporting infrastructure needed (e.g. charging stations and parking area) and potential resident impacts (e.g. home electricity and vehicle replacement) The basis for the 77 mpg fuel efficiency estimate should be described and supported. The accuracy of fuel efficiency forecasts directly affects carbon emissions predictions. Fuel efficiency could also determine the extent of conversion to electric vehicles driven based on how it motivates vehicle owners. GHG mitigation measures MM4.6-1 a, b, and c call an active/adaptive management approach for tracking progress towards state carbon reductions goals, potentially including regulatory corrective measures. Mitigation measures potentially resulting in regulation to meet state -driven carbon reduction goals may be appropriate if necessary to assure legal compliance, but would not be appropriate to meet local voluntary goals for complete carbon neutrality. The proposed mitigations listed above seem to be consistent with state goals and measures (legislation and orders). Section 6.0.5 entitled "Environmentally Superior Alternative" identifies the Character Retention alternative as environmentally superior to the other alternatives presented, including 2030 Carbon Neutrality. Among the alternatives presented, I would not object to Character Retention Alternative 3. 1 do not support the 2030 Carbon Neutrality Alternative 2. Alternative 2 in Section 6 is defined by two simultaneous changes to the baseline (acceleration to 2030 and no carbon offset purchases) whose respective impacts are not at all readily distinguishable in the report. The lack of distinction also hinders public discourse in this area. The report needs to better distinguish between the impacts of acceleration to 2030, versus the effects of not allowing carbon offset purchases, perhaps by adding a column to an existing table, or with a new table. Table 6.0-4 compares carbon reductions for the 2040 versus 2030 (with offsets) scenarios. The most glaring difference between the scenarios is seen by GRED1-3 cont. GRED1-4 GRED1-5 GRED1-6 Attachment 1A comparing the `Community Solar' and `Purchase Offsets' line items in the table. The main difference in HOW the carbon goals are met between the two scenarios is that the offsets in 2040 are roughly exchanged for a large increase in local energy generation. This is a large impact to land use, with other impacts such as glare and aesthetics also identified in the report. Note: This also relates to other comments provided about land and solar area. Section 6 includes impacts for each environmental area including Land Use Planning on Page 6.0-22. Why is there no discussion under Land Use Planning for Alternative 2 given that elsewhere in the report it is shown that the amount of local energy generation needed would increase by a factor of about 5x? Please include in Land Use section or elsewhere in the report if more appropriate. Additionally, Page 6-35 states as follows (underline added here): "Alternative 2 could pose greater impacts to aesthetics and biological resources due to increased use of renewable energy systems such as solar, wind, or ocean -based renewable energy sources, and greater impacts to cultural resources due to greater alteration or demolition of designated or potentially eligible historic resources to construct high energy performance buildings. While the impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources may be greater than with PLAN Hermosa, it is unknown whether they would rise to the level of being considered_a significant_impact._because the specific design and location of additional renewable enerav oroiects cannot be determined at this time" The above underlined excerpt seems to limit the depth of certain impact assessments in a way that is not very satisfying. That is why the solar scenario calculations are requested per other comments provided here. 1 can see how ocean wave/tidal technology may not yet be so well understood, but solar is. Section 6 includes Alternative 2 for 2030 Carbon Neutrality, which means the community has 14 years, not 24 years to reach neutrality after 2016. The rate of carbon reductions, based on the amount of reduction and reduced length of time to achieve, would be additionally challenging and likely especially impacting since the amount of time to meet goals is reduced by a factor of about 1.7x. Given the amount of reduction to achieve carbon neutrality is about 2x what is needed by city initiatives beyond state goals and measures (Fig. 4.6-3), this means carbon reduction must occur at a rate of nearly 4x what might normally be needed based on state measures. GRED1-6 cont. GRED1-7 GRED1-8 Attachment 1A Alternative 2 in Sec 6 identifies impacts including the following effects on residences. • Replacement of gas heating systems, water heaters, and stoves • Expense and delays to retrofit their homes for energy purposes prior to sale (unless onus for upgrades could be placed on homebuyer after sale) • Home electrical system impacts for electric vehicle charging. If homeowners lose discretion in the way they manage their property, this could have adverse environmental impacts. For example, if replacements or changes to home appliances, utility infrastructure, or building conversions are mandated to occur before these resources have exhausted their naturally useful lifetimes, there would be environmental impacts associated with the prematurely generated wastes. GRED1-9 Attachment 1A PLAN EIR - Additional Grethen Comments HB PLAN EIR Comments (Transportation/General) - Dec 2016 - D. Grethen (Comments/Recommendations in bold italics. Introductory/background info in plain text) Transportation: Tabulated data along with Figs 4.14-8 and -9 indicate worsening traffic levels or service (LOS) for 2040 including PCH, Artesia, Aviation, Prospect, and Manhattan Avenue. Accompanying discussion indicates reasons why the impacts are expected to be significant and unavoidable, emphasizing limitations of potential mitigation measures. But it was not clearly certainjust what is the root cause of the LOS degradation impacts. Is it mostly driven by the identified planned elimination of a lane of traffic in each direction of PCH in Hermosa Beach? Or is it more driven by other factors, such as increased regional traffic through Hermosa Beach, (e.g. more Redondo residents using Prospect)? Please provide an enhanced analytical explanation of reasons for degraded LOS in Hermosa Beach, especially for those roadways where LOS is as low as D or E (or even Q, including on Prospect. General: As a general EIR comment, it would be good if more explanations could be provided about what are the driving causes for environmental differences due to the PLAN (or between now and 2040). The comment above about LOS is a specific example that spurred this general comment. Throughout the EIR as a goal and to the extent practical, please attempt include more insight about reasons for results, notjust stating the results and showing the supporting data. Such insights and identification of root causes might be useful to guide additional future analyses efforts to seek mitigation. if this info is in certain appendices, perhaps add references to those. GRED 2-1 Attachment 1A Comments; EIR / City Planning Commission Art Krugler Sun 12/4/2016 8:28 PM o:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; From; Arthur H Krugler, Professional Chemical and Mechanical Engineer. Forty years of experience in power generation and fuels; 26 years in process plant engineering. Attendee and speaker @ Nov. 21 hearing _ invited by Tracy Hopkins: Provided copies of my booklet; POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT SEAT; CO2 and Global Warming You commission members impressed me with your attention to the EIR and the speakers; KRUA And also your understanding of the magnitude of the EIR proposals_ 1 -1 My comments as an observer: 1 The elephant in the room is the State Mandate on Carbon Neutrality; the Clean Power Plan. This could force major and expensive changes on the city and residents. I do not see enough information of how self -generation of power could save so much money. "A pessimist is someone who has financed an optimist", Ozone and Methane rules are also significant 2 My handout, "POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT SEAT; .. " is a condensation of years of study. Yes, NOAA data shows a sudden warming of the small North Pole area which started in 1980, see pages 1 and 20. 1 am neither denier, nor acceptor, nor challenger of modelers but a careful analyzer of data. 3 Ice core data shows our planet had started the cool down portion of the 110,000 year cycle ( see pages 1 and 19 ) some 10,000 years ago. Magma activity, ( volcanoes and undersea vents ) has caused a 35 year long 10 degree rise at the North Pole temperature, which is very likely ending. Earthquake activity near the North Pole, responding to Magma movement, increased in 1970 and has abruptly stopped. The North Pole ice could return very quickly. 4 CO2 levels will continue to rise along with the increased use of natural gas fuel but temperatures will cool. 5 1 expect to see many news reports this year and next like those in the -LA -Times today, Sunday Dec 4: Page A_ 20 "Aloha, Old Man Winter; Hawaii peaks get 2 feet of snow"_ 'last year had none: ----------- -------- ---------- ---- --- Page B_5; "Water year is -off to a good start"; Northern Sierra Nevada sees wettest fall since 1984', 200% above average: Expect snow storms and floods in Central and Eastern US. Cold arctic air meets warm humid Caribbean air with predictable results - An 'ice age' requires heavy snowfall for many years to create the thick ice layer. However, LA Times front page news continues; Page A-19 - Opinion; "OUR REPUBLIC OF CLIMATE"; 'California is a role model leading the nation - and even the world'. Actually, we need to develop and install a new generation of nuclear plants to provide the power for desalination and heating in this cold world as well as the ever increasing energy uses. Energy efficiency and alternate sources where economical are excellent also. Leaving fossil fuel in the ground will also leave the asphalt we need to replace roads and roofs. Arthur H Krugler Should any of you commissioners be interested in further discussion, I am available 2417, Further bio information is available @ KRUA -2 Attachment 1A Untitled G & J Moriyama Sat 11/19/2016 1:46 AM To:Leeanne Singleton <generaIplan@hermosabch.org>; This carbon neutrality business is a bunch of bologna- I MORG-1 Attachment 1A City owned building Prospect and 6th St. Fri 11/18/2016 1:52 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hernnosabch.org>; I have read the PLAN Hermosa draft and the General Plan and see references to maintenance and upgrades to City facilities, parks, etc. The structures in the City yard are referenced and I agree, they are in dire need of renovation. There is a building being used for storage next to Ft. Lots of Fun at 6th and Prospect. It has been allowed to deteriorate and is now an eyesore and a blight in our neighborhood. It is not in an industrial area - it is in a residential neighborhood with children, homes, dogs, parks, etc. and as such, is a HIGHLY VISIBLE structure. I do not see this building referenced in any of the documents under review. I invite you to_do a driveby,_take a look and tell me if you agree or disagree that this structure (peeling,_cracked stucco, mold and mildew growing up the sides)_should_be a HIGH PRIORITY item. _I guarantee you that no one in City ------------------- -- ---------- -- - govemment would want this structure in its condition in their neighborhood. I am asking that language be included in the planning documents that specifically references this building just as Clark Stadium, 8th Street, Plaza, fire station, library and other sites are referenced. Since this building has some historical significance (it was originally a school), perhaps it could be painted with one of the lovely murals I see in the downtown area, showing children playing and arriving for school as they would have back in 1925 when it was constructed. If there is another channel I should use to bring this to the attention of those who could bring about this request, please give that information and I will pursue the issue further. Bette Mower MOWB -I From: Jens Palsberg Attachment 1A Date: November 20, 2016 at 4:41:54 PM PST To: Peter Hoffman <phoffman@hermosabch.org>, Michael Flaherty <mflaherty@hermosabch.org>, Rob Saemann <rsaemann@hermosabch.org>, Marie Rice <mrice@hermosabch.org>, David Pedersen <dpedersen@hermosabch.org> Subject: a carbon neutral community Dear Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Peter Hoffman, Michael Flaherty, Rob Saernann, Marie Rice, and David Pedersen, Thank you for all you do for Hermosa Beach, I like PLAN Hermosa, which spells out worthwhile opportunities and has a forward -looking approach. I am particularly excited about the vision of a carbon neutral community. This vision attracted me and my UCLA Executive MBA team to do our final project on aspects of the vision, as detailed in the attached plan. The Hermosa Beach City Council voted in favor of the project on September 28, 2016. The project will run from January to June 2017. I believe that PLAN Hermosa's vision of a carbon neutral community will continue to garner interest and excitement in the future. Sincerely, Jens Palsberg Professor, UCLA Computer Science Department PAL)-1 Attachment 1A General Plan Air Quality Section Ken Sarno Wed 11/2/2016 3 06 PM Toleeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; The refineries surrounding us should not be omitted from the air quality section of the plan. The particulates and gasses emitted during surprise flares and other unanticipated refinery events in Torrance and El Segundo definitely lower the air quality in surrounding cities. To what extent and for how long our city's air quality is affected would vary depending on the nature and duration of the event. The problem is, we never know what the effects are because the refineries certainly won't tell us and we don't measure or analyze the air ourselves. In addition, low -probability but very deadly refinery emergencies related to the use of acid catalysts could require a rapid response by the city to minimize injury and loss of life. While this could be classified more as an emergency -preparedness issue than a matter of air quality, it SARK -r underscores the need to continuously monitor our own air for sudden changes, using city - controlled and calibrated equipment. It also reinforces the dual threats posed by regional refineries. The general plan should affirmatively recognize these threats (as should the planning of all nearby cities) and not just rest on regional trends and averages. Therefore the plan should incorporate: -- City -owned and observed air monitoring equipment -- Enhanced city relationship with AQMD and other regulatory agencies -- Involvement by the city in efforts to mitigate or remove refinery risks by both community groups and other neighbor city governments. Ken Sarno 1_10r Sent from AOL Mobile Mail SARK -2 Attachment 1A Carbon neutrality Heather Schneider Fri 12/2/2016 3:01 PM ial-eeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>, It is very very rare that I send comments to the city council, but I feel so strongly that I had to send this email. While we all need to do our part for the environment, I am strongly against Hemosa's proposed plan for Carbon Neutrality. I am against Hermosa buying carbon offsets. I am against the elimination o the use of natural gas. What is the proposed alternative? I am against establishing a CCA. Putting requirements on new building is one thing, but to mandate retrofits to existing buildings is not ok. We scHH have all lived in Hermosa for many many years and now you want to change the rules. All of these things will increase costs to home owners, prohibitively for many. How about going with a more positive approach of passing on savings and benefits to people who voluntarily make the proposed changes to their home, not penalizing others who don't. Sincerely, Heather Schneider Hermosa resident Attachment 1A NO 100% Carbon Neutrality Pam T Mon 12/5/2016 8:25 AM This is my letter to the Beach Reporter: Unless the HB Council can be convinced otherwise, it is about to adopt PLAN HERMOSA's general plan which includes making Hermosa Beach 100% Carbon Neutral. I feel the City Council is over stepping its authority and infringing on my Constitutional and Property Rights. While "Going Green" should be encouraged, it should not be mandatory. A big step to that plan is changing to Community Choice Aggregation for our energy source. It is an expensive undertaking and not without risks. The PLAN would mandate expensive retrofits on new construction, rebuilds and selling a home. It even effects what kind of car you drive, If compliance is not met, one must pay a penalty (yet to be determined in the form of credits to offset emissions. Residents have no vote in the matter. I feel that it is irresponsible of the Council to agree on such an extreme PLAN which will likely have negative impact on our property values. Kudos to HB Planning Commissioner Rob Saemann, for his common sense presentation at the last Council Meeting. Here is the link: httl2s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Jr eiKQUY&t=26s . PLAN HERMOSA seems determined on being "the first" to be Carbon Neutral. Our 1.4 sq. miles won't be a speck in the Global Carbon Footprint. Unless, you are competing in the Olympics or sports event, I don't see the need to be "first". You can learn a lot by others mistakes. It is time for PLAN HERMOSA to re-evaluate its PLAN, I LOVE Hermosa Beach, but dislike the radical direction it is headed. As the old saying goes, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". Pam Tatreau Hermosa Beach TATP 1-1 Carbon Neutrality Pam T Sat 12/31/2016 9:01 AM Attachment 1A PLAN HERMOSA is a group of individuals faced with determining and planning the future of H.B. I applaud their efforts to improve the health and environment of our city. However, I do NOT feel the "Carbon Neutrality" should be a part of that plan. Mandating expensive retrofits to new construction, rebuilds and selling a home is too extreme. "Carbon Neutrality" is better suited to a newly planned community where homes are builtwith solar panels and electrical appliances. People moving into that community are aware that there may be restrictions placed on the vehicles they drive. A BIG step in the "Carbon Neutrality Plan" is changing to Community Choice TATP Aggregation (CCA) for our energy source. It is an expensive undertaking and notwithout risks. Even our City Planners raised some z_Z valid concerns, "Carbon Neutrality" is too extreme for our little beach community and should be revised or deleted from the Plan. I feel that "Carbon Neutrality" is the goal of a few people and NOT the goal of the residents. Changes of this magnitude should NOT be decided by a few people. Why must residents try to convince the City Council not to support these changes? Many residents are still unaware of these changes which are about to affect their daily lives. If you really wanted to know how residents felt, you would not be afraid to put the measures on a ballot for a vote. I am beginning to lose faith in our community. I thought that I still lived in a democracy or is my beloved Hermosa Beach turning into a dictatorship? Thank you for your time. Pam Tatreau Hermosa Beach Feedback on PLAN Hermosa Attachment 1A Coco Tuttle Mon 12/12/2016 5:32 PM Tal-eeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Hello. My name is Coco Larson -Tuttle and my husband is Bruce Tuttle, We live at 1139 7th Place, Hermosa Beach. My husband is handicapped (visually impaired and in a wheelchair). I wanted to be sure that handicapped access is addressed in the general TUTC plan. Currently there are limited access streets that are safe for wheel chair travel and only a few streets (PCH) that have audible -1 alarms for crossing at lights. I would implore the city to consider handicapped people when decisions regarding the general plan are being made. Thank you, Coco Larson -Tuttle Sent from my iPad Attachment 1A INDIVIDUALS Comment # Response Steve Adler ADLS-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. It is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The specific questions raised by the commenter do not require further consideration for purposes of the EIR's evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts but are addressed in a separate document that will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider incorporating into PLAN Hermosa. Peggy Barr BARP-1 This comment addresses PLAN Hermosa Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 1.4 (carbon offsets as needed), which appears on page 4.6-15 in the Draft EIR. The commenter suggests "purchasing carbon offset credits (RECs) is not carbon neutral." It should be noted that "RECs" are not the same as carbon offsets; an REC is a renewable energy certificate. Neither PLAN Hermosa nor the Draft EIR refer to RECs. Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, evaluates the ability of PLAN Hermosa to reduce community GHG emissions to meet statewide GHG reduction goals, equivalent to 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040, the threshold of significance used in the analysis. While this section of the Draft EIR identifies carbon offsets as a strategy to meet a local carbon neutral goal by 2040, carbon offsets are not necessary, nor are they included in the analysis showing how the City will meet the long-term state goals. BARP-2 In addition to general policy comments on carbon neutrality, the commenter expresses an opinion about the production of renewable energy or participation in a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), stating there is no guarantee that the energy the City will generate or receive will be any more renewable or cleaner than what is already received from Southern California Edison (SCE). The commenter also provides a summary of SCE's power content mix in 2014, stating that 27 percent is clean, 33 percent is moderately clean, 40 percent is unspecified, and 24 percent of the power is renewable. The Draft EIR's GHG emissions analysis considered the emissions generated by SCE's current electricity mix, the effect of state legislation such as the Renewables Portfolio Standard (requiring 50 percent renewables by 2030), and the potential GHG reductions that would be achieved through implementation of a future CCA program, increased local renewable energy generation, and improved energy efficiency. Because the exact effect of each strategy on reducing GHG emissions cannot be determined until specific details of each program and policy are determined by the City Council and programs are implemented, the Draft EIR recommends three GHG-related mitigation measures: re -inventory community GHG emissions and evaluate implementation progress every five years at a minimum Attachment 1A (mitigation measure MM 4.6-1 b) and revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City's Climate Action Plan should the City determine that Hermosa Beach is not on track to achieve the applicable state GHG reduction goals. BARP-3 The commenter expresses an opinion about the effects that a carbon neutrality goal will have on residents and taxpayers with regard to specific policies contained in PLAN Hermosa. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The specific comments do not require further consideration for purposes of the EIR's evaluation of GHG emissions impacts, but are provided for consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission in their review and adoption of PLAN Hermosa. Claudia Berman BERC-1 The commenter suggested more detailed information regarding the technology assumptions used in the GHG emissions analysis should be provided to enhance the utility/readability of the Draft EIR, along with a table that compares PLAN Hermosa to the various GHG reduction goals set by local plans and state legislation. The Draft EIR has been revised to incorporate this information into Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Robert Fortunato FORR-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. An attachment to the comment letter outlined the City of Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan efforts, which are informational but are not relevant to PLAN Hermosa or the adequacy of the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR. No further response is required, but the information will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. David Grethen GREDI-1 The commenter notes the usefulness of Figure 4.6-3 (Emissions Reductions Needed to Meet State and Local Targets) on page 4.6-20 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in the Draft EIR, but suggests that the following questions should be addressed associated with the emissions reduction data presented in the figure: why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy to meet state goals; why is state legislation insufficient to meet state goals; and Is there something specific about Hermosa Beach that results in state legislation not being sufficient to meet state goals? The commenter's questions are not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. However, the questions are relevant to the policy and decision -making process for local GHG reduction goals. These issues are addressed in a separate document and will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider their incorporation into PLAN Hermosa. GRED1-2 The commenter suggests that the decision to use remotely generated versus locally generated renewable energy to achieve carbon reductions will be a large determinant of impacts, and suggests that rough order -of -magnitude estimates to supply the total kilowatt-hours kWh of energy needed, and an Attachment 1A additional renewable energy generation needed to avoid purchasing offsets, should be provided to support the impact analysis. Draft EIR Section 4.13, Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities, identifies the current and projected electricity use in Hermosa Beach, under a business -as -usual scenario and with implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies. The table below illustrates the rough order of magnitude of renewable energy needed to offset electricity use (including electric vehicle charging). Electricity Use Only 2040 Business -as -Usual Scenario With Implementation of PLAN Hermosa Policies Residential (kWh) 54,696,400 33,363,500 Nonresidential (kWh) 55,142,800 40,102,000 Electric vehicle (kWh) — 9,959,700 Total electricity use (kWh) 109,839,200 83,425,200 Average kWh generated annually per kW of solar 1,488 1,488 kW solar needed 73,817 56,065 MW solar needed 73.82 56.07 kWh — kilowatt-hour; kW — kilowatt; MW — megawatt -- The business -as -usual scenario does not anticipate energy use by electric vehicles to be tracked separately or represent a significant portion of the electricity consumption. As indicated by the data, to offset all Hermosa Beach electricity use in 2040, with the implementation of other PLAN Hermosa policies to reduce electricity use (e.g., building codes and energy conservation programs), approximately 56 megawatts (MW) of solar electricity would need to be installed. The feasibility of solar energy to provide more than 50 MW of electricity can be roughly estimated using Google's Project Sunroof, an interactive web -based tool that estimates the technical solar potential of all buildings in a region or community. For Los Angeles County, as a whole, a rooftop is considered viable if it receives 75 percent or more of the maximum annual sun. In Hermosa Beach, approximately 77 percent of rooftops in the city are considered viable (Project Sunroof data explorer (October 2016) [https://www.google.com/get/ sunroof/data-explorer/). It should be noted that the Project Sunroof data only consider rooftops and do not consider parking lots or the potential use of roadways for solar energy generation. Additionally, Project Solar focuses only on solar and does not consider the potential of wind, tidal, or wave energy technologies to meet local electricity demand. If the City were to offset all emissions sources through the generation of renewable energy, it would take the equivalent of 390 million kWh annually or approximately 262 MW of solar capacity. Given the limited land area in Attachment 1A Hermosa Beach, there is a higher likelihood that some of the energy would have to be generated outside of the city's boundaries to achieve this scenario. This analysis does not change the conclusions of the Draft EIR related to the feasibility of achieving GHG emissions reductions through implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies because the capacity to generate energy locally was already considered in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Additionally, this analysis does not change the conclusions of the potential effects of Alternative 2 (2030 Carbon Neutral Alternative), included in Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, which indicates there could be potentially greater impacts associated with aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources due to increased renewable energy generation (locally or elsewhere). GRED1-3 The commenter suggests that additional context or information should be provided associated with Table 4.13-7 (Fuel Consumption Associated with the Future Development Potential Under PLAN Hermosa), which is on page 4.13-62 in Section 4.13, Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities, in the Draft EIR, specifically which corresponding level of carbon reduction this usage supports (full neutrality versus 66 percent of 2005 levels); fraction and amount of increase in the fraction of citywide vehicles that are electric; and anything else that might better relate this table to Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in the Draft EIR. Table 4.13-7 was developed using the same assumptions used for the GHG emissions analysis in Section 4.6 in the Draft EIR, which shows that PLAN Hermosa will reduce emissions locally by at least 66 percent by 2040 and that achievement of carbon neutrality may occur through the purchase of offsets. By 2040 it is estimated that in Hermosa Beach approximately 75 percent of new vehicles will be electric or carbon -free vehicles, compared to approximately 5 percent in 2015. This information, along with all other assumptions associated with the calculation of energy or fuel use and GHG reductions, is also detailed in Appendix E-1 in the Draft EIR. As indicated in Table 4.13-7, the average fleet fuel efficiency is projected to be 55 miles per gallon by 2040; the projection is based on state and federal fuel efficiency standards. The reduction of transportation fuel consumed (77 percent) is a result of greater fuel efficiency from conventionally fueled vehicles, a reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled through land use changes, and a greater shift to electric vehicles. This information has been added to Section 4.13, Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). GREDI-4 As noted in the commenter's letter, mitigation measures MM 4.6-1 a, 1 b, and 1 c are intended to ensure consistency with the state's GHG reduction goals, which are based on the scientific consensus of the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius. As articulated on page 4.6-17 in the Draft EIR, the City of Hermosa Beach has identified that the impact of PLAN Hermosa would be significant if it would generate GHG emissions that exceed long-term state targets, roughly equivalent to emissions that are 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040. The mitigation measures are focused on ensuring compliance with long-term GHG reduction goals that exceed state goals. If the City sets GHG reduction goals that exceed state goals, the City could establish additional monitoring mechanisms separate from the EIR. The comment does Attachment 1A not change the analysis or conclusions of the EIR; therefore, no additional response is required. GREDI-5 This comment references Subsection 6.0.5, Environmentally Superior Alternative, of the Draft EIR, which identifies Alternative 3 (Character Retention Alternative) as the environmentally superior alternative. The commenter's preference for Alternative 3 is noted. The comment does not address the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. GREDI-6 The commenter suggests that a better distinction between the impacts of accelerating a carbon neutral goal to 2030 versus the effect of not allowing carbon offset purchases should be made in Alternative 2 (2030 Carbon Neutral Alternative). The commenter also suggests that an increase in local renewable energy generation would have impacts on land use that should be discussed in the environmental analysis of Alternative 2. Table 6.0-4 (Comparison of Emissions Reduction Scenarios 2030 vs. 2040), referenced by the commenter, illustrates the major changes in annual carbon reduction between the two scenarios presented under the Community Solar, Land Use and Transportation Alternatives, Additional Transportation Strategies, and Purchase Offsets categories. While it would be up to the City's decision -makers to determine exactly what policy direction should be explored in alternative scenarios, a scenario which accelerates carbon neutrality to 2030, but still includes the use of carbon offsets, would appear to be similar to the 2040 scenario already presented. A 2040 scenario that forgoes the use of carbon offsets would appear similar to the 2030 scenario, perhaps with slightly smaller reductions needed from the community solar strategy due to greater reductions from energy efficiency strategies. A rough order -of -magnitude analysis was presented in Response GREDI-2 to demonstrate the amount of renewable energy generation needed to meet various GHG reduction scenarios. The 2030 scenario presented as Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR assumes that 134 MW of solar, or other renewable energy production (wind, tidal, wave) equivalent to 200 million kWh annually, would be needed to achieve the resulting emissions reductions presented in Table 6.0-4. A large portion of this renewable energy has the potential to be generated locally, although the analysis indicates that some of this energy may be developed elsewhere, which may have potentially greater impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources, as noted in Responses GREDI-2 and GREDI-7. GREDI-7 This comment references the Land Use and Planning analysis for Alternative 2, which is on page 6.0-22 in the Draft EIR. The commenter notes that there is no discussion related to additional area needed for renewable energy generation and suggests that the analysis should be able to determine the potential impact of solar on certain resource areas, such as aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the evaluation of land use impacts is limited to whether or not the action would physically divide an established community, or whether it would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation. Because renewable energy resources such as solar and wind can already be accommodated on Attachment 1A rooftops or parking lots, or can serve as shade structures as an accessory to the primary use of a property (described in Section 17.46.220 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code), there is limited potential for the development of these generally small-scale resources to prevent the primary function or use of a property that would alter established land use patterns. With regard to potential impacts from larger -scale solar development on aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources, these impacts are difficult to determine without having specific details on location (local or elsewhere), size (utility scale or distributed), or technology (ground- or roof - mounted, static or sun -tracking). In general, renewable energy projects vary in their impacts and mitigations with respect to biological resources and aesthetics. Some of the impacts identified in large renewable energy projects in the state have included loss of sensitive habitat, alteration of migration and wildlife movement, aesthetic impacts along scenic highways, and creation of new sources of light and glare. A detailed impact analysis for these topics for Alternative 2 would be speculative and is not required under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145), and this level of detail is also not required for the alternatives analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The Draft EIR (p. 6.0-35) does, however, conservatively conclude that impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources may be greater with Alternative 2 than with PLAN Hermosa. The level of detail for the impact assessments for Alternative 2 is sufficient for informed decision -making. For the reasons stated above, no additional analysis is possible or warranted at this time. GREDI-8 The commenter notes that the rate of carbon reductions needed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 is nearly four times the rate of reductions needed to achieve state goals. This is a correct statement, but it is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. GREDI-9 The commenter suggests that Alternative 2 (2030 Carbon Neutral Alternative), and specifically the implementation of potential measures to replace gas heating appliances, retrofits to homes prior to sale, or addition of electric vehicle infrastructure, could have adverse environmental effects associated with waste generated due to equipment or building materials being replaced before these resources have exhausted their naturally useful lifetimes. Implementation of any policies related to GHG emissions reduction in the form of a legislative act or ordinance will require City Council approval and will include specific program details regarding the naturally useful lifetime of equipment, phased -in implementation, and other mechanisms to prevent the unnecessary disposal of materials or equipment. Additionally, the City of Hermosa Beach has several programs and requirements to ensure the proper disposal and handling of building materials and equipment to minimize environmental impacts. This includes a requirement that at least 50 percent of a building's demolition waste be recycled, and programs/events such as the Household Hazardous Waste collection. GRED2-1 The projected increase in regional population and employment from Hermosa Beach and other nearby cities by 2040 would lead to increased numbers of vehicle trips in Hermosa Beach unless changes to the land use and transportation system are implemented. When combined with the fact that Attachment 1A Hermosa Beach has little or no capacity within the right-of-way to expand vehicular facilities, the result is a degradation in the level of service at Artesia and Aviation boulevards and Prospect and Manhattan avenues. At most of the study intersections, PLAN Hermosa actually leads to improved LOS when compared to 2040 conditions without the project. For those locations where capacity is insufficient, widening roadways to increase capacity would, in most cases, be inconsistent with other goals of PLAN Hermosa. More information for specific locations is available in Appendix G in the Draft EIR. PLAN Hermosa actions include substantial implementation of Transportation Demand Management measures, which are expected to reduce the expected growth in traffic compared with the 2040 without PLAN Hermosa scenario. Therefore, cumulative impacts on both local and state facilities would be reduced. Art Krugler KRUA-1 The City appreciates the commenter's positive feedback regarding the Planning Commission's review of the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. KRUA-2 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The handout referenced in the comment concerns climate change, in general, and does not address climate change and GHG emissions in Hermosa Beach. Comments related to proposed policy will be presented to the City's decision -makers for consideration. It is also important to note that regardless of whether the City's decision -makers agree with the potential threats of climate change, the State of California has adopted long-term GHG reduction goals and requires jurisdictions to address GHG emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act and to demonstrate whether or not the project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. G & J Moriyama MORG-1 The commenters express an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Bette Mower MOWB-1 The commenter addresses a specific building in Hermosa Beach (Prospect Avenue School on 6th Street) and its condition and potential historic significance. The property (Assessor's Parcel No. 4160-026-900) was omitted from the initial screening of properties greater than 45 years old due to incomplete information provided through Los Angeles County Assessor's tax rolls and parcel data, which did not include a built date or indicate the structure on the property. The City's cultural resources consultant has conducted a records search and site evaluation for the property and determined, based on the structure's age and architecture, that it may be eligible for local listing. The property has been assigned a California Historical Resource Code of 553, meaning it appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation, and has been added to Table 4.4-1 in the Final EIR. Attachment 1A Jens Palsberg PALJ-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Ken Sarno SARK-1 The commenter suggests that the presence of refineries in nearby cities should be considered in the air quality section of the plan and that the City should measure and analyze air quality impacts independently. The presence of refineries in surrounding cities is clearly stated on page 136 in PLAN Hermosa and in Appendix C-4 of the Draft EIR, which notes that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates air emissions from refinery emissions through its permitting process. The City of Hermosa Beach does not have any regulatory authority over the refineries or air quality emissions outside of the City's jurisdiction. Further, the purpose of the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR is to evaluate and analyze the potential physical impacts that the implementation of PLAN Hermosa might have on the environment, rather than evaluating the environmental effects that existing uses may have in Hermosa Beach. SARK-2 The commenter suggests that the City should incorporate additional air quality and monitoring policies. The specific suggestions do not address the adequacy of the EIR and do not require further response for purposes of the EIR's evaluation of air quality impacts. However, these suggestions are provided in a separate document for consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission in their review and adoption of PLAN Hermosa. Heather Schneider SCHH-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Pam Tatreau TATPI-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. TATP2-1 The commenter expresses an opinion about the City's carbon neutral goal. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Coco Tuttle TUTC-1 This comment is directed to the policies of PLAN Hermosa and not the Draft EIR. Accessibility is addressed in PLAN Hermosa. For example, Policy 3.10 (page 125) requires that all public rights -of -way be designed per Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards by incorporating crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and other components to provide ease of access for disabled persons. Policy 2.4 (page 205) directs the City to consider innovative funding strategies, such as cost -sharing, ADA accessibility grants, or sidewalk dedications, to improve the overall condition, safety, and accessibility of sidewalks. As future public or private projects are proposed, the City will be responsible for ensuring projects are constructed in compliance with ADA standards. Attachment 1A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Attachment 1A Attachment 1A Hermosa Beach 1 1 .21 .16 Planning Commission Study Session Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR Planning Commission Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing - PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report Speaker: David Grethen, Hermosa Beach Summary: Most comments are in the area of carbon neutrality. • In regards to local energy projects, it would be helpful to have a scenario which looks at how much solar would be needed to meet the entire energy usage of the city, both for the municipal and community scale, and how much area that might take up, and to compare that with available rooftop area we have for businesses and residences and whether we'd have to take up open space to satisfy that goal. • Would like to know more about the stated amount of electric vehicle usage and the amount of kWh used for electric vehicles. Would also like to know the rate of vehicle conversion and how much room we would need in town for charging station infrastructure. • The character retention alternative looks potentially appealing, the carbon neutral by 2030 less so. On the carbon neutrality alternative, it is a little bit unfortunate that we are lumping together the acceleration to 2030 and the lack of offsets because then it makes it hard to distinguish the effects of the two factors. that I gather that the bulk of the impact is due to the offsets and not the 2030 goal. It would be really nice if there was a better way to sort out the difference between 2030 and 2040. • Why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy in order to meet state goals. And is there something unique about Hermosa that does not get us to the state goals. Transcription: I will be submitting written comments, and most of them are in the area of carbon neutrality. So you'll be getting those and you'll look forward to getting those I hope. So I'll try to touch on some of the highlights just while I have the verbal opportunity to do so. One area where I'm looking for more information is where it talks about local energy projects and a statement about certain unknowns where it's hard to really tell if there's an impact. Something I've always been curious about is if we did a scenario where we looked at all solar to meet the entire energy usage of the city, both for the municipal and the community wide goals and to do some rough order of magnitude calculation to see the solar panel area and equipment area would be needed just to get a feel of the order of magnitude we are talking about. I'd also be interested then in comparing hat with how much available rooftop area we have for businesses and residences and if we'd have to go to the point of starting to take up open space to satisfy that goal. Another area is talk about a stated amount of electric vehicle usage and a stated amount of kWh used. Would like to know more about the assumed amount of vehicle conversion of what 1 PUBM-1 Attachment 1A Hermosa Beach 1 1 .21 .16 Planning Commission Study Session Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR assumed amount we would go to among all the residents around town. And it would be PUBM-1 interesting to see how that would affect how much room we would need in town for the cost. charging station infrastructure. A quick comment in looking at the alternatives that the character retention alternative looks potentially appealing, the carbon neutral by 2030 alternative does not look so appealing to me. On the carbon neutrality alternative, it is a little bit unfortunate that we are lumping together the acceleration to 2030 and the lack of offsets because then it makes it hard to distinguish the effects of the two factors. I will point out there's a table that shows where we are receiving about 30% of the reduction from community solar, and then the other scenario where we are receiving about 30% from offsets and from that I gather that the bulk of the impact is due to the offsets and not the 2030 goal. It would be really nice if there was a better way to sort out the difference between 2030 and 2040. I also noticed something really interesting about the bar graph that helps explain, I'd like to see more discussion about that graph, and there's something that stuck out to me. My question is, why does state legislation need to be augmented by local policy in order to meet state goals. And is there something unique about Hermosa that does not get us to the state goals. I think the better we understood that, we might be able to better meet the goals. In general, when we talk about local energy, what really sticks out is what we do locally vs what we do remotely. And I think that aspect should really be emphasized. Speaker: Tracy Hopkins, Hermosa Beach Summary: • A resolution from the Republican National Committee was read that discusses the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. • Suggested that our local communities are in peril because of a small group that seeks to convince us that unless we surrender our property and freedoms, and unless we subsume our individual rights to the good of the community that the planet will not survive. • For over 200 years, Americans have protected our planet and our nation and our liberties and as communities we can pull together to create our own plans to improve the environment without the control of international groups and the seductive lure of easy federal grants. Transcription: I just want to read this statement about a resolution exposing the UN Sustainable Development Agenda since this document is full with sustainable development policies. Whereas the United Nations Sustainable Development is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil in 1992, and whereas the United Nations Sustainable Development is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives 2 PUBM-2 PU BM-3 Attachment 1A Hermosa Beach 1 1 .21 .16 Planning Commission Study Session Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR (ICLEI) through local sustainable development policies such as smart growth, resilient cities, regional visioning projects through green or alternative development projects, and whereas the United States through radical sustainable development goals, so called sustainable development, views American private property ownership, single-family homes, private care ownership, and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms, all as destructive to the environment, and whereas according to the United Nations Sustainable Development Policy social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth, whereas according to the United Nations Sustainable Development Policy where national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice, now therefore be resolved the Republic National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of the United Nations Sustainable Development and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan, and therefore be it further resolved that the US Government and no state or local government is legally bound by the UN Sustainable Development Treaty and that it has never been endorsed by the US Government, and therefore be it further resolved that the Federal and State and local governments across the country be well-informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development destructive strategies for sustainable development and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it. I would like to finish by suggesting that our local communities are in peril because of a small group that seeks to convince us that unless we surrender our property and freedoms, and unles we subsume our individual rights to the good of the community that the planet will not survive, yet this is a false choice. For over 200 years, Americans have protected our planet and our nation and our liberties and as communities we can pull together to create our own plans to improve the environment without the control of international groups and the seductive lure of easy federal grants. Together we can respect our environment and keep our rights and freedoms working together. That is the real choice. Speaker: Mark Hopkins, Hermosa Beach Summary: • The January 5th date seems like it's not really for out enough as we are starting Thanksgiving right now and going through the holidays and I just don't think people are going to get enough time. • Made reference to a survey of the American Meteorological Society Survey that was done this year. r The survey received responses from 3,761 members and the question was asked, "Which of the following best describes the local effects of climate change over the next 50 years?" Among the responses, 47% said that the impacts will be primarily harmful, and another 3% said that they will be exclusively harmful which is just 50%. PU BM-3 cont. Attachment 1A Hermosa Beach 1 1 .21.16 Planning Commission Study Session Public Comments on the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR Transcription: The January 5'" date seems like it's not really far out enough as we are starting Thanksgiving right now and going through the holidays and I just don't think people are going to get enough time PUBM-4 to address that. Just wanted to point out, and I pulled this up online is a survey of the American Meteorological Society Survey that was done this year. Basically it was given to thousands of members and this particular portion was 3,761 members who responded where the question was asked, "Which of the following best describes the local effects of climate change over the next 50 yearsV And there are some bar graphs here and 47% said that the impacts will be primarily harmful, and another 3% said that they will be exclusively harmful so that's 50%. My point here is that we keep talking about the carbon neutrality here and in reality only half of the American Meteorological Society says that it's going to be harmful in the next 50 years. Anybody can look this up, it's not my survey, it's theirs. So I'm concerned that we keep working on the policies in this city, when yet the science is far from being solid. http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/20l 6/O3/24/96-of-american-meteorological- society-members-think-climate-change-is-happening-says-new-report/#2b3975803935 4 PUBM-5 Attachment 1A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (NOVEMBER 21, 2016) Comment # Response PUBM-1 See responses GRED1-1 and GREDI-2, which address the written comments submitted by the commenter concerning solar energy and electric vehicle usage, respectively. PUBM-2 See responses GREDI-4 and GRED1-5, which address the written comments submitted by the commenter concerning Character Retention Alternative 3 evaluated in the Draft EIR and the need for augmenting state legislation by local policy to meet state goals, respectively. PUBM-3 The commenter expresses an opinion about sustainable development, in general. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. PUBM-4 The commenter's opinion about the close of the comment period ending on January 5, 2017, for the Draft EIR is noted. CEQA Guidelines Section 15105 requires a minimum 45-day review period for public review of a Draft EIR. The comment period for the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR began October 26, 2016. The City has provided a review period of 72 days, which exceeds the 45-day requirement. No additional response is required. PUBM-5 The commenter expresses an opinion about carbon neutrality, in general. The comment is not directed to the adequacy of the technical analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Attachment 1A This page intentionally left blank. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section includes minor revisions to the Draft EIR. These modifications resulted from responses to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period as well as staff -initiated changes. Changes are provided in revision marks (underline for new text and s#+keeut for deleted text). Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. 3.2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages iv-vi, list of appendices, revised as follows to include additional documents: Appendix C: Technical Background Report C-1. Introduction C-2. Aesthetics C-3. Agricultural Resources C-4. Air Quality C-5. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation C-6. Biological Resources C-7. Cultural Resources C-8. Energy C-9. Geology and Soils C-10. Hazards and Hazardous Material C-1 1. Hydrology and Water Quality C-12. Land Use and Planning C-13. Mineral Resources C-14. Population and Housing C-15. Noise C-16. Public Services and Utilities, and Recreation C-17. Transportation C-18. References Appendix Al Hermosa Beach Market Analysis Appendix A2 Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise Appendix B1 Natural Resources Appendix B2 Special Status Species Appendix B6 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix B7 City of Hermosa Beach 2013-2021 Housing Element Appendix D: Air Quality Assessment Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Assessment E-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Assumptions E-2. City of Hermosa Beach GHG Inventory, Forecast, and Target Setting Report E-3. Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool and User Guide Appendix F: Noise Assessment F-1. Noise Measurements City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-1 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR F-2. Traffic Model Appendix G: Transportation Assessment G-1. Lane Configurations G-2. Traffic Counts G-3. Peak Hour Turning Movement Traffic Volumes G-4. LOS Worksheets G-5. Traffic Methodology G-6. VMT Reduction Methods and TDM+ Tool Outputs Appendix H: Tribal Consultation Pages v and vi, list of tables (excerpt), revised as follows: Table 4.3-1 Acreages of Vegetative Communities within the Coastal and InlandZones........................................................,............................................ 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Special -Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur Within and Surrounding the Planning Area........................................................................ 4.3-6 Table 4.3-3 Special -Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Within and Surrounding the Planning Area........................................................................ 4.3-8 Table 4.6-1 Potential Statewide Impacts from Climate Change ................................... 4.6-2 Table 4.6-2 Hermosa Beach Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012........................................................................................ 4.6-6 Table 4.6-3 Hermosa Beach Baseline (2005), Forecast (2040) Emissions, and Target Level(2040).................... ........................................................................ 4.6-18 Table 4.6-4 California Policies Reducing Emissions Locally ............................................ 4.6-19 Table 4.6-5 Comparison of BAU and Adjusted BAU Emissions (2040) .......................... 4.6-20 Table 4.6-6 Summary of Annual Emissions Reductions by Sector in 2040 ................... 4.6-23 Table 4.6-7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals and Achievements ........................... 4.6-28 Page viii, list of figures (excerpt), revised as follows: Figure 3.0-10 Proposed Safe Routes to School Network ................................................... 3.0-20 Figure 3.0-1 1 Parks and Public Facilities................................................................................ 3.0-24 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetative Communities.................................................................................. 4.3-4 Figure 4_.3-2 Pr_evi-olisl_y_R_e_cor_d-e_d-Occur_r_e_nces-_f--Sped-al-St_a#us_Species ................... _4-.3-5 Figure 4.5-1 Regional Faults..................................................................................................... 4.5-4 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Description has been updated based on changes to PLAN Hermosa recommended by the Planning Commission and a clean version is provided at the end of this attachment. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-2 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.1 (AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES) Update Figure 4.1-1 Character Areas with modified map from PLAN Hermosa. Update Figure 4.1-2 Prominent Public Viewpoints with modified map from PLAN Hermosa. Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. Page 4.1-14, Impact 4.1-1 has been revised as follows: IMPACT 4.1-1 Would PLAN Hermosa Cause Adverse Effects on Scenic Vistas and Viewsheds? Future actions under PLAN Hermosa have the potential to encroach on views from prominent public viewpoints. Future actions also have the potential to degrade the visual quality of scenic vistas, through the introduction of incongruous features to the viewshed. However, PLAN Hermosa also includes policies and implementation actions that direct future_ di grefionaa projects to identify, evaluate, rind to the extent reasonable avoid the substantial of2stryctlon, interference or dearadation of scenic vistas thrgygh the offering of exceptions to devela ment standards that will allow for siting the groiecl in a manner that avoids impacting scenic vistas. This impact would be less than significant because development under PLAN Hermosa would comply with the evaluation and design process to avoid adverse effects on scenic vistas. Page 4.1-14, paragraph 2 under Impact 4.1-1 discussion has been revised as follows: PLAN Hermosa outlines the community's vision for proposed development in each of the city's distinctive zones and identifies policies and actions to reduce impacts to these public view corridors. For example, implementation actions PARKS-10 and 11, GRd 1= require discretionary design review for new development and public works projects based on specific criteria to be established in the Zoning Ordinance to evaluate pFefect scenic vistas. As such, utilities would be located underground when possible, and fences and walls would not block views from designated viewpoints, scenic roads, or other public viewing areas. Parks + Open Space Element Policy 5.1 states the intent to identify prefec4 scenic vistas. Public vistas would also be protected through proposed implementation actions, as listed above. Page 4.1-14, paragraph 4 under Impact 4.1-1 discussion has been revised as follows: 45;fPr, ,-Ir„-1 o ,rhorJr NA4PI IIIJ be ....ienil..11y elr.nlil.+rvn,-1 mi+irv.v}ien morvrl Iro AA AAA •7 _7 WGO!d be required.nl to te- the bl lil}. a I} nnfl r. Iro f L.lormGE-Q. BeGGh i} the I•mor! ro,-L-h Gfthe +heProfec+;on-elm hl•,- Th'r +rip- • h r AP simil rPr�}eet experier}ee af}d os�lic pie i�o. II iio Iilelllc io arrao +h +ho ri IIbeut its-geels ferPreteeting seeRiG VistGs—The policies and GQI IrGI'QIIQI I' lrlll I II IGT actions as revised related to public views are designed to provide more specificity on the exiaectafion and process for identlMna, evaluating. and addressing potential impacts fo scenic vistas in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act and the California Fny_ironmentgl_Q,uality Act. The greater level of specificity contained within the policies and implementation actions further helps to appropriately guide City staff and decision makers in the future to obLectively and consistenfly and reasonably evaluate and mitigate City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-3 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR impacts to scenic vistas, and provide the opportunity for setback, open space, landscaping or other relief to properties that may otherwise substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from a scenic vista. This allows the property owner to minimize the impact to a public view while providing the owner the some development privileges enjoyed by other simitarproperfles in the vicinity tsimiiar to a variances. The specific exception to be applied to each project will be evaluated on a project level to determine its appropriateness and compatibility with the neighborhood and the list of available exceptions will be specified in the zoning ordinance. ThLgL)gh the public hearing process, the community and commissioners have had an opportunity to synthesize PLAN Hermosa Figure 5.3, which shows the proposed Prominent Public Views and Uninterru ted Viewing Areas. Based on community and commissioner input, the Figure has been revised to remove two sites that do not meet the criteria for Prominent Public Views. The two views deleted include 8th Street at Loma Drive and El oeste Drive. The 8th/Loma location can be deleted because the view is already surrounded by properties that have been developed close to or of the maximum extent allowed and therefore, future development during the life of the plan will not further impact the view beyond the existing development. The EI Oeste viewpoint can be deleted because, while it presenfs a highly intact uninterrupted view, it does not meet the rominent vi w rho,yin a nr viiewers. This location is at the end of a dead end residential street where the general public does not typically access, pass or congregate. Therefore, It would be unlikely to have a large number of public viewers. The language incorporated into the policies and actions has been changed such that properties adiacent to, rather than within 50 feet of. the Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas will be required to evaluate and reasonably mitigate any substantial impacf to a public view. Additionally, portions of Implementation Action PARKS- 12 have been removed because of their specificity to appropriafe colors and textures and the portions of the actions pertaining to public works projects have been incorporated into PARKS-11. To specify appropriate colors or textures to private property owners would go against a Iona -standing community policy against judging or dictating design. These language changes are also appropriate because the 50 foot requirement, as well as the requirements for specific screening methods or use of .certain materials mgy not be appropriate in all situations and do not allow for any site specific flexibility. Additionally, the language was too precise for policy language and implementation actions (and for the originally proposed mitigation measure). These types of details are-betfer worked out throw h the im lementatian rote s and develo ment of th or inance. In some cases 5D_feet may be too fgr, and in others it may not be for enough. There are site specific conditions like width of the road setback re uiremenfs and building height limits(vary from 25-35 feet) that may require variation in the distance needed to analyze impacts to views. It is further noted that the changes to the policies and implementation actions related to public views achieve the some purpose as proposed Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, that the potential impact to scenic vistas is adeauately mitigated to a level that is less than jignificant, and that no new significant impacts to Aesfhetics have been identified based on these changes. Page 4.1-15, Mitigation Measures has been revised as follows: None Required. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-4 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 4.1-15, Impact 4.1-2 has been revised as follows: IMPACT 4.1-2 Would PLAN Hermosa Have Adverse Effects on Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway? There are no designated state scenic highways in or near Hermosa Beach. However, PLAN Hermosa directs the City to pr-eteGt beautify and enhance Pacific Coast Highway es e r etenfiell)' SGeRiG highwGy and would guide development and reuse projects in a manner that is consistent with the existing visual character of Pacific Coast Highways fhet if rgay be de5igr,,.,fod_ o high,.,.-,„,-,f SGMe r, •r,f +�. Therefore PLAN Hermosa would have a less than significant impact. Scenic resources can include man-made or natural features, viewpoints, or viewsheds. They can include visually significant features such as rocks, trees, and historic buildings, particularly if those features are within a state scenic highway. There are no designated state scenic highways in or near Hermosa Beach. u,,weyer r.r,.pesed PGFI(s + QpeR cr,r rdoi-i.-9i,_rio th,wt on hq... A -o fho cfro4nh ref P(-H Pc A qr-PAiP PPrP1'rC-.P In its current state, Pacific Coast Highway's only significance as a scenic resource is its public views to the Pacific Ocean and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As noted in the discussion above, significant public vistas from Pacific Coast Highway would be protected through proposed Policy 5.1 and implementation actions PARKS-10 and 11. morvci iro AAAA A 1 -1 Page 4.1-17, Table 4.1-1, City of Hermosa Beach Existing Visual Character and Future Vision, has been updated to reflect the changes to the Future Vision of Character Areas from PLAN Hermosa. Page 4.1-20, fourth paragraph has been revised as follows: As outlined above, PLAN Hermosa's intent is to maintain and enhance the city's visual character through appropriate building massing, scale, and size. Adoption and implementation of PLAN Hermosa would not substantially alter any of the residential neighborhoods or areas of the city, but may alter certain areas near Downtown and The Strand, through new development and streetscape. PLAN Hermosa policies are meant to preserve the city's character, including those resources that are designated landmarks or architecturally distinctive. For example, Goal 5 is intended to specifically retain the city's City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-5 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.O REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR character as a small beach town. Further, Land Use + Design Element Policy 1.6 would require the City to consider new development's compatibility with the existing scale and context, and Parks + Open Space Element Policy 5.2 accommodates new buildings in a way that reflects the visual character of the community. None of the provisions of PLAN Hermosa would alter current land use patterns, height restrictions, or compatibility and buffering requirements currently established in the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., Sections 17.22.130, 17.26.050, and 17.28.030). PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions identified in this section implement and expand current General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policy provisions for the protection of the city's visual character identified above in subsection 4.1.3, Regulatory Setting. Page 4.1-21, third paragraph has been revised as follows: Land Use + Design Element Policies 1.6, 1.8, and 2.7 would also require new developments to be compatible with surrounding development, as well as enhance existing character and be sensitive to context. gimilGFly, LGRGIUse 4= DGSign EIGMeR+ P I,,.,, 10.6 r o b4ldimgs—Implementation action LAND USE-2 directs the City to gU update the development standards within the Zoninq Code to illustrate and articulate the appropriate building form, scale, and massing for each established character area in accordance with those key features and characteristics to ensure that the overall visual character of the neighborhoods, centers, and districts is preserved. This action would apply to individual neighborhoods and character areas as identified in Figure 4.1-1 and in Table 4.1-1, as it would apply citywide. The proposed implementation action establishes the appropriate mechanism for developing zoning standards desigp- g4deliReS that would prevent significant degradation of the built environment's visual character. As such, implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and programs would reduce the impacts associated with visual character and visual sensitivity to a less than significant level because the City would implement deSigR review development standards that require attention to and consistency with the surrounding area Y,o'..ht-,,..img sir, +, r -s in form, line, massing, end Pelee and existing visual character and identity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. SECTION 4.2 (AIR QUALITY) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. Page 4.2-1 1, second paragraph has been modified as follows: --By—focusing—planning and improverrrent efforfs toward de -signing complete streets, promoting economic diversity, and enhancing communitywide mobility, PLAN Hermosa is anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the city. Mobility Element Goal 3 would encourage multimodal and people -oriented transportation, which could minimize or eliminate certain mobile vehicle trips (see Section 4.14, Transportation, of this EIR for an analysis of anticipated vehicle miles traveled under PLAN Hermosa). Land Use + Design Element Goal 1 would promote a diverse mix of uses, which would reduce vehicle trips between residential uses and retail or employment uses. Land Use + Design Element Goal 4 would increase the accessibility of public transit to nearby residential uses, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled. Mobility Element Policy 5.5 encourages SPRGFt ^'Fewt" ^ land use policies to ensure more compact, mixed connected, and multimodal development supports reduced trip generation, trip lengths, and greater ability to utilize alternative PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-6 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR modes. Implementing these policies and programs would strengthen Hermosa Beach's efforts to reduce air quality emissions from VMT, area sources, construction, and other miscellaneous sources beyond that of the existing General Plan, which is the basis for the existing regional air quality plan (i.e., 2012 Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP]). Page 4.2-12, last paragraph has been modified as follows: PLAN Hermosa policies include numerous measures that support transportation demand and accessibility management. Specifically, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 3.2 directs the City to support land use and transportation strategies to reduce "�i^io emissions, including pollution from commercial and passenger vehicles. Policy 3.7 directs the City to consult with other agencies to improve air quality through regional efforts to reduce air pollution from mobile sources and other large polluters. PLAN Hermosa would promote land use and transportation investments that support greater transportation choice, greater local economic opportunity, and reduced number and length of automobile trips. Page 4.2-13, third paragraph has been modified as follows: A number of PLAN Hermosa policies, along with required SCAQMD rules and regulations, would help reduce short-term construction emissions. All construction projects in the city would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to minimize fugitive particulate matter (PM) dust emissions during construction. In addition, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 7.2 would require future projects to minimize PMio and PM2.5 emissions by promoting best practices for controlling fugitive dust. Implementation actions SUSTAINABILITY-16 and 17, GRGI 19 aim to control soil erosion during grading and other construction activities. Furthermore, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 2.-;�6 would require all discretionary projects to substantially mitigate all feasible greenhouse gas emissions, which would also affect the emissions of ozone precursors, PMio, and PM2.5 in the city. SECTION 4.3 (BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. SECTION 4.4 (CULTURAL RESOURCES) Page 4.4-2, first paragraph, has been revised as follows: Hermosa Beach has not been surveyed previously; therefore, a citywide windshield survey was conducted by certified architectural historians to examine existing conditions and identify examples of ^^for,+ir" „ eligible property types, styles, and methods of construction that represent key periods of development in Hermosa Beach. AV"i^" I^^n+lRg rr I infegFif.,, There are approximately 3,600 parcels with improvements over 45 years old in Hermosa Beach. e tefr-,I .-,f 71 Q irr„-,ri.yed PGFGelr ,. o e ideptified .-, e+eRfiGlly eligible , City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-7 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 4.4-4, Figure 4.4-1, Potentially Eligible Historic Resources Map, has been removed and is replaced with a narrative describing the general history and time periods of development in Hermosa Beach as provided in the Existing Conditions Report. Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. Page 4.4-1 1, last paragraph is modified as follows: Implementation action LAND USE-2321 would require archaeological investigations, as necessary, by a qualified archaeologist for projects subject to CEQA involving ground - disturbing activities for areas not previously surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural resources and would require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources would be affected by a proposed project. For example, an initial archaeological study (Phase I Assessment), at a minimum, would consist of the following tasks to identify known archaeological resources in a given project site: a cultural resources records search through the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, a pedestrian survey of the project site, a review of the land use history, and coordination with knowledgeable organizations or individuals (e.g., Hermosa Beach Historical Society, Native American tribes). If warranted, additional analyses such as archaeological test excavations and/or remote sensing methods would be implemented to identify resources. Page 4.4-12, first paragraph is modified as follows: To identify if a project requires archaeological investigations, the City would review available geotechnical studies to determine whether excavation activities would impact native soils. If a geotechnical study is not available for review, then the City would need to make a determination based on a review of recent aerial photography of the project location, available data from adjacent or nearby sites, and professional judgement. Thus, with implementation action LAND USE-22321, future development and reuse projects under PLAN Hermosa would implement the appropriate treatment and/or preservation of resources if encountered. Therefore, potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant. Page 4.4-14, last paragraph, and 4.14-15 first paragraph are modified as follows: The City does not have a comprehensive list of potentially eligible historic properties over 45 years old. During the preparation of the City's General Plan Land Use Element in 1994, 28 historical resources and two historic districts were identified as potentially eligible; however, some of these potential resources have been demolished or substantially altered. Furthermore, this list is now over 20 years old and many additional properties now meet the age threshold for consideration that would have not been considered in 1994. A new windshield survey was. conducted to examine existing conditions and identify PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-8 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR examples of property types styles and methods of construction that represent key periods of development in Hermosa Beach. 4s G188Gri198d in Appendix 7 PQR GGRGlUGtGGl G1 219 Lve[E.-.ihln r.rr„ i ' Page 4.4-15, paragraph five and six, and Page 4.14-16, first paragraph are modified as follows: Provisions of the City's current preservation ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.53) would not prevent the demolition or impairment of a historic building or structures that are not formally designated as a landmark under the City's preservation ordinance or listed on the City's potential historical resources list, but that meet the definition of historical resource for the purpose of CEQA. Demolition of such a historical resource would be a significant impact under CEQA. Furthermore, it is possible that some structures that have not yet been surveyed could be eligible historical resources. 1FR19lnmon+a+;on GGtiGRS I A t JQ Policies 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.6 would encourage the voluntary designation of potentially eligible historic resources as landmarks or historic districts, prehibif Gnd discourage the inappropriate alteration or demolition of designated landmarks, require the evaluation of PGtGRfiGll., eligible historic resources associated with discretionary projects prior to demolition, and provide incentives for preservation of historic resources. The implementation actions set forth in PLAN Hermosa recommend a number of programs to support the goals and policies described above. PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions requiring the identification and protection of historic resources, along with adherence to existing federal, state, and City regulations, would provide greater protections to locally designated and potential historical resources. Other implementation actions address amending CEQA documentation and the initial study program to ensure historic resources are adequately addressed (LAND USE-13) he esfGhlishMeRt 9f G18SigR F8YiGWi g0ideliReS (LAND USE 19)However, implementation of PLAN Hermosa would not prevent the demolition of or substantial adverse change to potentially eligible historic buildings and City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-9 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR structures that qualify as historical resources pursuant to CEQA, but have not been formally designated under the City's preservation ordinance or listed on the City's potential landmark list. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. Page 4.4-16, Mitigation Measures have been revised as follows; Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-4ba The City shall require project applicants of discretionary projects to conduct historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports on a project -by -project basis, when a project proposes to alter, demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential historic Fie landmark as defined by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.53. MM 4.4-4c-b The City shall maintain the "Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach" guide, and shall update the guide so that it is informed by current resource data and its goals and policies are consistent with the Land Use + Design Element. MM 4.4-4dc The City shall develop procedures and nomination applications to facilitate and streamline the designation of local historic sites and historic districts. MM 4.4-4ed Historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports shall be performed by persons who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716). Significance After Mitigation Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4-4fd would reduce impacts on historical resources to the extent feasible. However, impacts on potentially eligible historic structures could occur depending on the proposed uses, the cost of rehabilitation, and safety considerations. Thus, it may not be feasible in all circumstances to rehabilitate a structure and retain its historic significance. apprevGI. Given this uncertainty, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-10 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Discussions under Impacts 4.4-5, 4.4-6 have been updated to reference LAND USE-21 implementation action. Discussions under Impact 4.4-8 has been updated to reflect new mitigation measures identified in 4.4-4 to reference MM4.4-4a - MM4.4-4d. SECTION 4.5 (GEOLOGY AND SOILS) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. SECTION 4.6 (GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft Page 4.6-9, second paragraph, last sentence, is revised as follows: assumptiens used tra-cG;cw'r+eerAi55i9R5FeduGtiaps. Appendix E-I PLAN Hermosa Greenhouse Gas Reduction Assum tions defails the sources and assumptions use in the Carbon Plannin Too[ to estimate the-100tenfial emissions reductions from each strategy. The analysis relies on assumptions based on current technology (e.g., the overage electrical ❑utpO of 1 kilowatt fkW1 of solar,in Hermosa Beach is currently 1,488 kilowatt hourslkWhl annually_j_unless regulation or peer -reviewed research can reasonably protect the effect that future technology would hove on reducing GHG emissions e.g., state and federal fuel efficiency standards for light-dutyassenger vehicles mandate that the avers e fue[ efficiency of a vehicle fleet will increase from 34 miles ner gallon in 2016 to 55 miles per gallon by 2025). Page 4.6-22, third through fifth paragraphs are modified as follows: Finally, PLAN Hermosa also includes several policies to support the reduction of GHG emissions that are not specific to a certain activity or sector. For instance, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 2.1 states that Hermosa Beach will reduce its GHG emissions in alignment with state targets and goals Qnd will glrALqGh•o„o ArbeA w # lity R fer fhGR 2040. Implementation action SUSTAINABILITY-1 will establish a GHG impact fee for all future discretionary development projects to offset their frihz-or GHG contribution above established thresholds, and SUSTAINABILITY-5 requires the City to regularly monitor and evaluate Hermosa Beach's progress toward community -wide GGrhty greenhouse gas reductions. at Irt 0 ROAM City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-11 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR As noted in the Thresholds of Significance discussion above, PLAN Hermosa needs to demonstrate an ability to achieve long-term statewide goals by reducing community GHG emissions by approximately 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040 to be considered a less than significant impact. Full implementation of the policies and actions in PLAN Hermosa has the potential to reduce emissions through local projects by at least 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040 arm Up fr. 100 Pee f by 2Q40 fhrr gh the r GhGSe ref GGIditinnal cvAcrrrTLQd in the21104Gbilit; QGASeFvetien element wedldi Eeme frpm omicci— cis. Table 4.6-6, on Page 4.6-23, is modified as follows: TABLE 4.6-6 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY SECTOR IN 2040 Share of Carbon Reductions (%) Annual Carbon Reduction (MTCOze) Baseline 2005 Emissions 137,160 2012 Emissions -7.7% 126,610 BAU Emissions (2040) +5.0% 133,430 State Programs (2040) -27.7% 38,010 Local Remaining Emissions to Be Reduced 95,420 Building Efficiency New Construction Residential Efficiency -1.3% 1,810 Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 New Construction Nonresidential Efficiency -0.0.7 2,810 Existing Buildings Nonresidential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 Subtotal -9.8% 13,490 Renewable Energy Generation Rooftop Solar -5.9% 8,100 Community Solar -0.4% 550 Renewable Energy Procurement -7.3% 10,010 Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) -0.0% 0 Subtotal -13.6% 18,660 Transportation + Land Use Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -4.0% 5,500 Additional Transportation Strategies -1.9% 2,560 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-12 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Share of Carbon Reductions (%) Annual Carbon Reduction (MTCOse) Electric Vehicles -7.4% 10,100 Subtotal -13.0% 18,160 Other Sectors + Offsets Waste + Recycling -2.5% 3,480 Water+ Wastewater -0.2% 330 Pi FGhGse Offse# 0. % 41,31 g Subtotal -2.7% 33 810 TOTAL -69.917. 54,110 Source: City of Hermosa Beach 2016 Page 4.6-24 Mitigation Measures updated as follows: MM 4.6-1a The City of Hermosa Beach will utilize the climate action plan, under development by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, er and other appropriate tools to research current data gaps, identify and take specific actions, and define the responsible parties and time frames needed to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals (monitoring milestones) identified in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1 b. MM 4.6-1b The City of Hermosa Beach will re -inventory community GHG emissions and evaluate implementation progress of policies to reduce GHG emissions for the calendar year of 2020 and a minimum of every five years thereafter. The interim reduction goals to be achieved for consistency with long-term state goals include: • 2020: 15 percent below 2005 levels • 2025: 31 percent below 2005 levels • 2030: 49 percent below 2005 levels • 2035: 57 percent below 2005 levels • 2040: 66 percent below 2005 levels MM 4.6-1c The City will revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City's Climate Action Plan, and other appropriate tools when, upon evaluation required in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1 b, the City determines that Hermosa Beach is not on track to meet the applicable GHG reduction goals. Revisions to PLAN Hermosa, the Climate Action Plan, or other City policies and programs will include additional regulatory measures or incentives that provide a higher degree of certainty that emissions reduction targets will be met. Use of an adaptive management approach would allow the City to evaluate progress by activity sector (e.g., transportation, energy, water, waste) and prescribe additional policies or programs to be implemented in the intervening five years for activity sectors that are not on track to achieve the GHG reduction goals. Page 4.6-28, under Impact 4.6-2, a new paragraph and table are inserted as follows: A numeric summgry of the relevant GHG emissions reduction goals articulated through state legislation or executive orders and locally adopted planning documents, along with City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-13 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR the level of GHG reductions that are anticipated to be achieved through the implementation of policies in PLAN Hermosa, is presented in Table 4.6-7. TABLE 4.6-7 (NEW TABLE ADDED TO EIR) GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS Percent Emissions Reduction Below 2005 Levels GHG Emissions Reduction Goals Goal Origination 2020 2030 2040 2050 :State Legislation (adopted) 15% (AB 32) 49% (SB 32) :State Executive Order 83% (E.O. S-3-05) Local Plans (Adopted) 15% (SustainabilityPlan) Trajectory Needed to Meet Goals 15% 49% 66% 83% PLAN Hermosa PLAN Hermosa 66% PLAN Hermosa EIR Alternative 2 (without offsets 100% Source: City of Hermosa Beach, 2016. Page 4.6-29, paragraph two is modified to read as follows: In 2015, the City of Hermosa Beach adopted a local goal to become a carbon neutral municipal organization no later than 2020 through adoption of the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. This The Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan was funded by a grant from the Southern California Association of Governments to identify and explore emissions reduction opportunities for municipal facilities and operations. The Municipal CN Plan also idgntiti s the elements of setting a greenhouse gas reduction goal inglu ing the time frame, magnitude, and scope of emissions/activities included. The Municipal CN Plan explored a ranee of greenhouse gas reduction coals and ultimately adovted a goal to reach carbon neutrality for municipal facilities and operations by the end of 2020. Examoles of implementation measures in the Municipal CN flan included pursuing Communif Choice Aggregation (CCA1, accelerating implementation of the Clean Fieet Policy, upgrading street Iiahling to LED lighting, installing solar photovol# is systems on municipal property, gnd dedicating staff to implement employee commute reduction programs. Implementation of these measures was iprolected to redwice direct munici al emissions b at least 40 b 2020. To reach a goal of carbon neutrality, the Municipal CN PI_an identified that the remaining emissions_ woui_d need to be offset by either generating additional local renewable energy or purchasing offsets, though in 2016 Council provided .direction to staff not to pursue the hatter option to purchase offsets Given the progress between 2005 and 2015, the_omjects recently completed or anticipated to be com leted in the next few years, and the previous direction frQm Cit Council not to ursue fhe use of carbon credits or offsets, the City is on course to reduce municipal emissions by PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised August 2017 3.0-14 3.O REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR approximately 58% by 2020 from 2005 levels, which exceeds the direct emissions reductions identified in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plar* but does not reach the carbon neu#r I oaf for municipal facilities by 2020. PLAN Hermosa includes Sustainabili# + Conservation Element Goal 1 to meet or exceed n 80 reduction in municipol greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 through projects that will directly reduce emissions from municipal facilities and operations (rather than through offsetsl^ While the goal does naf commit to carton neutrality for the municipality s previously indicated in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan, Goal 1 and the associated policies will lead to a greater level of direct measureable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than identified in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan(GG430^ ^811#4 F;iGiPG- G—G--iUi6 Rd opeFetions by 70hn ..AG FR ,RGiPr1 GFgGR, fi n by 9Q20 To further support the goal, Policies 1.1 through 1.10 speak to prioritizing projects that provide the highest return on investment, aligning projects to reduce emissions with the current sources of emissions, and using pilot or demonstration projects. The policies included in PLAN Hermosa mirror the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan recommendations to pursue a diverse mixture of emissions reduction projects, to utilize offsets, and to evaluate the costs and savings/benefits of various projects prior to implementing. SECTION 4.7 (HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS) Page 4.7-4 description of City of Hermosa Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated as follows: • City of Hermosa Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan: The City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan has been updated in 2017 to meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The act requires local governments to prepare plans that identify hazards and risks within a community, and create appropriate mitigation. The purpose of the plan is to integrate hazard mitigation strategies into the City's daily activities and programs. Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. References updated as follows: City of Hermosa Beach. 2014. EBB Oil Drilling 8, Production Project Final Environmental Impact Report.hftp://www.hermosabch.org/ffp/oil_docs/FEIR%2OHermosa%20beach%20Oil%20Pr oject_AII%20Sections.pdf. 2016. City of Hermosa Beach Emergency Operations Plan. Accessed January 2014. htio://www.hermosabch,�arcL/n-Laduleslshowdocument.asox?documen tid=7802 2017. City of Hermosa Beach 2017 Draft Local Hargrd Mitigation Plan. http://www.hermosabch.ora/modules/showdocument.aspx?documenfid=9252 2017. PLAN Hermosa. SECTION 4.8 (HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. References updated as follows: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa Revised August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-15 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 2017. City of Hermosa Beach 2017 Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. httpJ/www_.hermosabch.orglmodules/showdocument.ospx?documeni id=9252 2017. PLAN Hermosa. SECTION 4.9 (LAND USE AND PLANNING) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. Replace Figure 4.9-1 with updated Land Use Designation Maps from PLAN Hermosa. SECTION 4.10 (MINERAL RESOURCES) No changes. SECTION 4.11 (NOISE AND VIBRATION) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. SECTION 4.12 (POPULATION AND HOUSING) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. SECTION 4.13 (PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. Update Figure 4.13-1 Parks and Public Facilities with modified map from PLAN Hermosa. Update Table 4.13-2 Parks and Community Facilities in Hermosa Beach with modified table form PLAN Hermosa. Page 4.13-35, second to last sentence in the second paragraph under the Wastewater subheading is revised as follows: The LACSD trunk lines flow to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), located in Carson. The JWPCP is one of the largest wastewater plants in the world and is the largest of the LACSD wastewater treatment plants. The facility provides both primary and secondary treatment and has a total permitted capacity of 400 million gallons per day (mgd).3 The plant serves a population of approximately 3.5 million people throughout Los Angeles County. Treated discharge from the plant is transported to the Pacific Ocean through a network of outfalls, which extend 1.5 miles off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, to a depth of 200 feet (LACSD 2013). The JWPCP currently processes an average flow of 263. 254.1 mgd (LACSD 2015; LACSD 2017). The projected flow to the JWPCP in its service area for 2050 is 359 mgd.4 Page 4.13-43, first paragraph in the discussion of Impact 4.13.7-1 is revised as follows: The increased population resulting from implementation of PLAN Hermosa could generate additional wastewater flows that would be treated by the Joint Water Pollution Control PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-16 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Plant located in Carson. The LACSD has estimated wastewater flows generated by the additional 300 residential units and 630,400 square feet of nonresidential development to be approximately 251,680 gallons per day (or 0.252 mgd) of wastewater (LACSD 2015).6 Currently, the JWPCP treats an average of 263.1 254.1 mgd, which includes flows from Hermosa Beach. The addition of flows from PLAN Hermosa (0.252 mgd) would increase treated flows to approximately 2634 254.4 mgd, which would not exceed the current 280- mgd primary and secondary treatment capacity or the 400-mgd permitted capacity of the JWPCP. PLAN Hermosa's additional flows would represent less than an approximately 0.1 percent contribution to flows. Page 4.13-62, two new sentences have been added to the end of the second paragraph under the "Automotive Fuel Consumption" subheading as follows: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa's proposed policies and implementation actions that are designed to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit forms of transportation would further reduce dependency on fossil fuels. As shown in Table 4.13-7, under PLAN Hermosa, the amount of transportation fuels consumed would be reduced to approximately 1.4 million gallons or almost 77 percent when compared to existing (2015) conditions, but would also increase electricity consumption due to the increase in use of electric vehicles. The reduction of trans ortation fuel consumed by 2040 comr>ared to 2015 177percent) is aresult_of greoterfuel efficiency from conventionally fueled vehicles a reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled through land use changes, and a greater shift to electric_ vehicles or fossil -free vehicle . 5Y 2040 it is esfirnated that agoroximately 75 perceni of new vehicles in Hermosa Beach will be electric or fossil -free vehicles, compared to approximately 5 percent in 2015..This information, along with all other assumptions associated with the. calculation of eneray or fuel use and greenhouse gas reductions. is presenfed in Appendix E-1 Page 4.13-62, a new paragraph has been added immediately following Table 4.13-7 as follows: The data in Table 4.13-7 have been developed using the some assumptions used for the reenhouse gas emissions analysis in Section 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions which concludes that PLAN Hermosa will reduce emissions locally by at least 66 percent by 2040. Page 4.13-67, a new reference is added as follows: LACSD (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County). 2012. Clearwater Program Final Master Facilities Plan. 2013. Wastewater Facilities. http://www.locsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/default.asp#map. 2015. Plan Hermosa: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Update [comment letter on Notice of Preparation dated September 8, 2015, included in Appendix B] 2017. Response to DEIR for the PLAN Hermosa. City of Hermosa Beach General Pion and Local Coastal Program Update [comment fetter on Draft EIR dated January 5, 2017, included in Section, 2.0, Responses to Comments. in the Final EJRl SECTION 4.14 (TRANSPORTATION) Replace Policies and Implementation Actions from PLAN Hermosa with modified policies from City Council Final Draft. Update Table 4.14-14 to match proposed bicycle facilities map. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 3.0-17 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR TABLE 4.14-14 PLANNED HERMOSA BEACH BICYCLE FACILITIES Class I Street/Path From To Proposed Class I and IV Facilities I Marvin Braude Bike Trail ( The Strand) North City Limits South City Limits IV Prospect Avenue Artesia Boulevard South City Limits IV Hermosa Avenue North City Limits 26th Street Proposed Class II and Class III Facilities II Aviation Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway Harper Avenue II Artesia Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway Harper Avenue IIAII Hermosa Avenue North City Limits South City Limits II/III 27th Street/Gould Avenue Hermosa Avenue Pacific Coast Highway III Pier Avenue Hermosa Avenue Pacific Coast Highway III 16th Street Hermosa Avenue Prospect Avenue III Longfellow Avenue Hermosa Avenue Valley Drive III Valley Drive Longfellow Avenue Herondo Street III Mornin side Drive 35th Street 26' Street III 5th Street/6th Street Hermosa Avenue Pros ect Avenue III loth Street The Strand Prospect Avenue III 22nd Street/Monterey Boulevard The Strand Herondo Street III 21st Street Ardmore Avenue Prospect Avenue Source: City of Hermosa Beach 2015 APPENDIX C Apoendix C-7 is modified to delete Figure 7.2: Potential Historic Resources Appendix C is modified to include the following appendices prepared as part of the Technical Background Report (appendices numbered as they appear in the Technical Background Report). These appendices are included on CD at the back of this Final EIR. UP Appendix Al Hermosa Beach Market Analysis • Appendix A2 Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise • Appendix B1 Natural Resources • Appendix B2 Special Status Species • Appendix B6 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment • Appendix_B7 City of_Hermosa_Beac_h201.32021_Housing _ELement APPENDIX H (NEW) A new Appendix H (Tribal Consultation) has been added to document the Tribal Consultation process completed by the City for this project in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. The documents in Appendix H are confidential to comply with AB 52 and protect the confidential information provided by California Native American Tribes. They are included in the administrative record for the EIR and are on file with the City of Hermosa Beach. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0-18 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA), the City of Hermosa Beach (City) is required to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the implementation of mitigation measures for PLAN Hermosa, if if is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in this environmental impact report (EIR). This Lead Agency responsibility originates in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) (Findings) and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) (Findings) and 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting). 4.2 MONITORING AUTHORITY AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure that the measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts are implemented. An MMRP can be a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the City and/or future project applicants (as appropriate), but also the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities of the City and any monitors it may designate. The City may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring to other environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The City or its designee(s), however, will ensure that each person delegated any duties or responsibilities is qualified to monitor compliance. Any mitigation measure study or plan that requires the approval of the City must allow at least 60 days for adequate review time. When a mitigation measure requires that a mitigation program be developed during the design phase of a specific project, the applicant must submit the final program to City for review and approval for at least 60 days before any construction activity begins. Other agencies and jurisdictions may require additional review time. If is the responsibility of the environmental monitor to ensure that appropriate agency reviews and approvals are obtained. The City or its designee will also ensure that any deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program is approved by the City. Any deviation and its correction shall be reported immediately to the City or its designee by the environmental monitor. The City is responsible for enforcing the procedures adopted for monitoring through the environmental monitor. Any assigned environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring, notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the City or its designee. 4.3 MITIGATION COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY The City and/or future project applicant, as applicable, is responsible for successfully implementing the mitigation measures in the MMRP, and is responsible for assuring that these requirements are met by all of its contractors and field personnel. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as coordination with a resource agency or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Other mitigation measures include performance standards. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of plans for the implementation of mitigation measures. 4.4 GENERAL MONITORING PROCEDURES Environmental Monitors. The City and the environmental monitor(s) are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction or operation process in coordination with project applicants. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, the environmental monitor assigned to a project must be on -site during that portion of the construction or operation that has the potential to create a significant environmental impact or City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa Revised August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM other impact for which mitigation is required. The environmental monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed. General Reporting Procedures. Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other individuals will be reported to the environmental monitor. A monitoring record form will be submitted to the environmental monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that details of the visit can be recorded and progress tracked by the environmental monitor. A checklist will be developed and maintained by the environmental monitor to track all procedures required for each mitigation measure and to ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to. The environmental monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action to rectify the problems. Public Access to Records. The public is allowed access to records and reports used to track the monitoring program. Monitoring records and reports will be made available for public inspection by the City or its designee on request. 4.5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING TABLE Table 4.0-1 lists the monitoring and reporting plan requirements for the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 through Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR for PLAN Hermosa. Table 4.0-1 provides the following information, by column: • Mitigation Measure (description of the mitigation measure, listed in the order they appear in the Draft EIR); • Compliance Verification (monitoring or plan requirements necessary to verify compliance with the mitigation measure); • Responsible Party (this is the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure) • Timing (this identifies when the action needs to be taken on the mitigation measure) • Verification Method (this is how the agency responsible for ensuring the mitigation measure has been implemented); and • Verification Responsibility (this is the agency that is responsible for assuring compliance with the mitigation measure). PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0-2 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 l7 2 a z O IL W CC a z a z a O z O 2 Z O H Q e _ O— M u •C to ra O ra O IOUO u C Go > a a v v OC a U m a_ V 2 0o a u 2 m a CL C 4 C 4. 0 C C V a •O cn .0 O ,n rYC L 'O O ',n c L 'O W a C g u: v 0) 0) u = j 0Q- o o a JE •_ � > Y . > > Y � c 0 > a c 0 c 0 W 0 c 'a uu u_ E c_ E O c c O V P u Ot O 0) O 0) � c c r 7 :3 0 •N M Y Y CL a L41e � V a V - o u U _ o a u V o Q CL +� a s o c� " v � v v^ O -_ �- O N u_0 0N N ( ' c0c 0- O Ya m c o c Y um' a E O)o 7 d O Y (D a �o aVuor d u a o c o a ° =ai Oo � Q(�a O u 0) a Y o 0 O -YV > Qj ` 0)fa �7= a Q O E Ou_ -a Z, a CL 0 o'c d O Z O > UO Y O -, — v 7 Ol uj. O •-c -7 a 'O Q > fa m = 6� (u O 00 +ca+ Y E 0)0 N , o_v�a, a) 2 -0 a vi' 3 M N o .o a mCY F, O Y N v a c Q v Q v E .Y E c ro 0 r�o � a o 2, c _CL '� +, a•, +, a E p 7 tY6 O m Y in a M> E u c ` u, �-0 m Y -0 0 0 m u m a .m vi m 0 O 4.m U O Y, c m f6 aai cco i X Y 'a a : u -O a fp Ol E O a _� Y " c c -se c a' v � u E c c E E E = a o -a -o O c E- j 0 0) a ^ m 0 a m E o m zn Ln m o E a- ^' C� .> c m c0 'L' N = = _ �1 a 61 c m L � s L t O O a-0 o m a .°� > - +' E L v c g@ -0 t a 0 j v u t 3 m c -23 O> o >, t v °' u o s c �^ °�' � u u of U A, m0 � aEi x a� a a � o > 'u 2 -0 aa) 2) -0 O ,.; ` E � o ;m v O � v '� 0 0) Q O c)-c •Ol E v 0- O O C Yvmi ) > 7 d = C_a "a 0 +LA ON O E L v w +�'' c Q C V Z .0 a Y Q -0 a 0 u u m v c C-� 7 c ro c N 0 -O Ot O O a u i..O >, N v .� O �a •D v O E u a) Y W ^I Y u c m IN Q t m D- i l- u O a Q a E— m Q a- N E E Q m ro a l� 0` Y 0 01 u c Y O, � Q 0 0 . . . . . m a Z, ^ C O m E N" O 3 + 3 .0 . . S v N u m N _ d = O` N -w 7 d N N N O CMA �+ V M 0 v r'I LU m Q w raw V Z O a W c. e r O— m' u :~ O C p° L E u p° L E v p° L E u a'' N a N a > OG U S m u 2 m U l m C T C 'a+ C ) O u (U � c c L O c O ' Oi O CU -a °O 0 +� 0 u - O u 0 u vi Q cu c a) 0u o > O a- m J 7 u vO > > -O > Q v u m u G! > C O O O O V u N U > u 2 m c E cc ° c 0 I- ,� p u o c Y 0O O Q Q V Q CL •C � C as C C u u N V V V Q Q Q CL m ai m CL m N m a! y O N .� v C T O C 7 a) Y 'Y c u n ai u a v m Q +V+ (U L ~ u c Ol v m °J 3 ` c `° "O p °' rco O -p c v oo •( c0 p pU '� O .N Cs � O .0 � O c a1 O E O .� C ai T L m O O O L c u m N .� O= v u V •- 0)Y Y Y u rto V c c -a i a) U "w O c NE° o p o -0 p p 3c 0- a) C V uq N j aJ ` t ° u Co Vp U, (uo m -0 (u ai in v 0)Y ° c a) 0 ' o a1 -0 ai L O O Y �' 'u ` :c u Q — co >` '+� c o 7 a'• C f 6 O ra LL Ln �o Y aJ c o ac, o *' u 3: o o' o �o s O_ 6 Q is o a) n ° ,, 3 o aEi v° a) U °> o fO a a� a) m t v� U v o v u C a) O in 'Y L LL .m ?� a) a1 > > U �'' a! V p 7 aJ `1 i Q L j Z. n r L p a 0 aL-+ N i N L N m Vm1 to vc N 3 Q a) > Q io ° C 4 m E cO Yvm ai j (Um O„ 3 c m L vC m v L 0 7 u 6 a c (U au .c O �° ,J E O Q m 3 v v(Uv V a 4 O ct mu ��� (U Q >s > � Q LZ a) p p Q a) aE• pi C? s+am-i • ai 0 Zc CU 'Cp wQQ o� `Q- p n o ` m CU N V1 a) 3 C oNa'o ° >' p m CLO C Lu (u a) a,cu U Q E (uo - N 5= o-`- L- -0 v Q u g d o Q 2 C° p o a 3 v c 3 o v Q d p N y o o, Q a) ° p� V) - v v� -° p m U -^ t •� =_ v C v v ° ? 'M 3= 3° E o o a) 3 � m o Ln u o E w i 7 U v c ai .m L E a, m a) L O 0 O (u O W •'° c m m T Y _ �1 O vU. o ° v o a o�� E m M a) v a o N v o a, " .o v U m a- m V m v O U d v °+J v vA m ro •3 c 6 a, `t a v o Q v 3 c O ` � N a, N 1i 4. N N M om o v M a � 0 �1 0 O a O Z lz O A W ce G Z a O Z O tz Z O 2 O P F•1 a I* W m H c' O— M N V c v_ O ut O L ut O ut O y N > ° E u L ° E u L ° E u a u= m v= m af6i v= m c a c C ++ O y c c .� Q w c c ° �O •� O o a) ra u o� ° Y 3 u fY6 ° Y u rn 3 u v w GI > `� C v ,a) O C a) a) '� •O w C a) 7> > > a, c o E (u E > u c u0 n _ c •a Ol 2 a c CL Z c c n a c o O C> �, E C ~ ° m •� 'u V Ot O Y c fa C Yn N O N fa 0) o Q ° O 0 ° T E C C Y N a) ._ O U 0. Q O Q a ra a m U m O LAu 'Qv E o U0 N p a) � -O O a, m E ) o — a) O O a) O '� '� •Y N O Q •, N N rCa v N ut Q7 a) Q Oi W u - N N a) . Q O Ol w L O N °- "O U m a) N L .0 Ol Y c Q> Y u a) (p C u O _C O Z, E _u U U aL-+ c c n3 C O M co m -O a) a) 'Y MY > L> o u>°° Z o a') C�a21 IA U C CL OZ aa ° O 0Eo ° ) E + aE v E E � "C a >Y O >N- v0) Q F C O O C Oa) a) +cO° W EY � � u Cl) u E� E� E o o> f E o �a)o OOC c u ) O c pu c v +O O� E =- •E >, uQ -0O R a v U O j Ol 7 Q= v Q r, U O O v v CL>'i m> .ul a E ° m M Y u E u a oM T) a) C O v; o f ^ au, a, E a, c Z O C o+ L n _ O '� �a O v 7 tf >` ° O L E 2 vi Ofo Q (a 7 N Y pl ut a) -0 7 O a) Q to Y 3 U L j° `L U OaCL v U L :Ll E p E a) a) V p 0 Z' u u a) a) a) u 'o c v ` — Y O c u O ro '� c v °J E V a) r a`; v '0) " ` s ra -0 o c v 2 a O ^ O t L O O° aci O o O cv ro ^� rn 0 OU Y Z C u a) Y �' C `1 Ql E Y c �) C C Q) a) L L C 01 C J %p �D d j a) 2 to N ' 7 a) .� > a) O a)+ j L v' Q ut V fa d i O ro 'y. Q C 'Y > Y :° O *' d 2 u O U C T O t L O '^ LL O- 6 N am. °u c> O L _ E m .E m V Q O O f6 U +� . a) �o v O N u ' aJ 'FA u a) O' m O a) -O CC o Q� H e O to CL c +. d v a a v g U 0 of a l7 z P m a OC C z a z O Zj O m � Fa- �z.1 r a P WE� LA O 2 09 W x Q a c k O = m u w Cp ro — 0 0 0 0 v- 0 L a o E u o E y o E y ° E u ° E y > d v v aU v m oe af°i u=m a`O, u=m of )i u=m a�6i 'u=m u=m c p of m ai o" M O a O *' a o °a C a C a '• ` 2)0 u Ol ?� u v v 2 a+ HE .v E w> C a� Ln > O O v Ln v Ln v Ln w o 0 o o m0 o M0 V C u in CDT N o T N f0 L O 'N N c C N a) •++ N cu '++ Lr- E E rca �� Ln° a'�v ��v c p ohm v O u �, O i c v$ cuu c tf ate• O 0 Ot cW T d o M a O_ +.- Q Q u O m ro cu L Co ro +� o ro ro ro 0 0 0 0 E E E E ?, cu CL) c m u m a s U m U m U m c O 0 c P' a, cu E ° °' 'E o mE a_ v o a� c Qu u '0 c o a1 YO +� v ro O fO aJ cu Q > a� U Y to m c c i O o 0) v +m N 7 Q1 E v E o CU u �o L 2�� m w a -o o Q) O� '� P; a6i E u E° o � a c aEi u c V U f� N o i L.L =_ ate+ ate+ M Y CL CC)o o o E m c o w a) _ u a0i p 'O c O c Q' o .c u c= .0 ��> t E .� c Z E f6 a E *' ^ m fO u 0 ay' cu m a, � v>" E 3 o.^ �, Q .5 c v •E y v O ro y C E O, O O u u U ._ u a ra y c w y N N u E v� 'uu N v O i+ �1 m = ._ O • — .� VI N VI N N ro C C -p O +� v v� v cw O_ O 0 v aJ a� d O O O .0 ro coo7 N f O cu a>i j a>i a>i a>i a>i +, s v O `0 N lLA v O .y a) _c O u Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln > o� u v 0= N � o +� E v � E v �, . o 0 0 0 C 0 _ m m � -�-- o v 3 a 3 v € °Q3� rca cu a>> o 0 0 0 0 Q 0_ O a1 °' Ln o rua V ruo - w w�- Z c O o �'� cu rn -o CO e a� o ro ro 0° o c c c c c c , Q� v rn t Y s m ° u o, o v ° c o u u u u u u 3 v aJ N U 41 V N O T N O W N W W W a) aJ a�i ai vi of -c aj E Q c E oc"� �, m fO E E aaao v O a> o C7 _cu o N y ro O- aj Lo Ln -1 rn r,� o +' ra t v, o 0 N 2 t o *' 2 a ro O .--i rn � Ln �o — U= a) '^ aJ v t .� 3 E .� v O1 O O U c 4- N rn >' c N N cn M — 3 N t N v E Q u o u i� u u o u o- O L T c t> r, s Q m O PC 2 0 LYn = v H ro Q) • H w u • • • • H ro ro 0 do m N 0 N bW U i A Q) w a c� z O a W w � ; O 0 fa O Z P Q P C IA O 2 cd W Z g c -' o— VI 4-0 •L. '0 0 0 4- CL AA Cp ° C V ° U C C rp ° U C v= m �= ° -a p O 4. O M =° W d c c ra _ ° c c,� O c c O r° w O •` GI a+ v rn 3 u �L- C cu - cm u p u of 3 v C y .a) w aJ ,a! > p Q c U > V > O Q y O o p C f0 V C U 2 / U C a E C •E 0 c c -rlO u u � N ,O V ~ 0 2 +�_' of vYi 0 i Y V `g c m + a) o E a a o ¢ .Q ° Q U CL y d Q) ° ° a Q) ° 51 a ° °- U v ° a ce a a m a m c 2)� c O O v +) u n m N c a; c a is O _0 O c c a) > ,� a) Q E e E 0 cu O -0 c m -� a) p E c E v v o a) m .� Q m a m + '7 v 0 p u v c a� Q u �e ro O u cu a)O U 0_ ro X > m c a-. c O ++ c Q y > ,-� E a� aJ C > pV p rm w �.' L ++ VI C O p '++ f0 N C H W m.� Vl S .ti j (p m 2 -0- p) O) f�0 O p f6 a% -0 0 i j .O U �-+ O N N +. `a p c a� m e ? 0 E ', O E v o ro u a, d N to `p `O 2 t Q� rNo 7 u-2 E -O a1 Y tf t v 'C O 3 E d °1 v N 0 m 0 t a c N O` Q o N° ._ t CL ° -O 0 3t ` -,— o •�_+ a� �Q rn � +� �y m•° �O LE °)E ++ ++ of a) m O 0 E L c m a v 6 C vi v 2 u cu .E "a .4) C C U Z) c v ++ C C 3 v �� o C ` f° c 3 '° >> �o �o c v (T o +O+ m rn a� 0 ° '> aci ° a N -Ou 0 v 01 � api ^ aci M > v co N f° v v o u N E v O C a Y o o p_ a) `o :> L Q .S � ,c .E.7 +�-. OU o .0 -O o °J �` C a, , a m -p N E N 'n ` N '++ ++ Q OL d C Q> (C >>� C V (O � Q) Ln *� Q u Ou Oc Q A= vU a ,3 v> v O m Q � M -O 0 io v a O c aci u v *O' v E '- QC) o c rn c� n3 co Q � v O O cu t+ c � 3 +� c a>i v +-+ = o C= o@ v o- c o N ' p O` = v a--0 E 'o t O :° +.. C U w m 0 O > +) C w '� f6 > �+ tp -O U 7 f0 T Q c +' c u O X O v a ^ c v o 3 aLi ° O '+� N f 6 E o O ° a� 0 v p o 2 o' 0) c v) 'v, o o v v c > ro c v c m m 3 v .E p 2 a ro 2 a fO E V lJ a lJ v a, 0) a v� a, a c> a m y -o O o a) _ a E v m `° o v o� u a 0 3 3 l7 L Li m .E _ N �° aci c N N i L a o a+ o f. m 2 a 2 v n O '�i r'I O I* r O w a z 5 IL c p o— r 'IA O a ul > w c o c y c O ;� y w a, a, V c �0 'a p� e_ E O u 'N c 0 0. a VI d �. C O cu p O cu = V OC1 N Ol C O L 'Y a) -6 1.1 01 =3 CX O ;C y O V f6 C_ u 2 > O co N O — in N O O ++ in ate+ r7 '^ cC u N O vi ° +' O C C _0 a1 o� c E .o a o a_ E (u Q N m Y i O) E .E E w O as -a ^ ,, c (U 0--0 ° '� Y °' v > c v c + a�i Q fO +� c > W W a, m W Q._ E o °' O H , a •r, Q- � c° • c cu Y ° E u E >1 u o ^ ns c -a m a, E a1 aJ d ol - � +m ' m C u m-0 r6 c ° -- c Y C O O .L N ° Y ° 7 ++ m 01 •° ( c a) E p 3 a, a�i o o v, co �n a, •> al Y O ° Y a) a1 E .� - a) E C a) o °c' Q o° C V o c c° _n v o E m a 4 'cj c c O ua c f5 -r- u11 cu �°'O v u!E E v` 3>CL Ln o o to av 11 u x LU o c N M W c, d IN PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Hermosa Beach City Council Project Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations For Adoption of PLAN Hermosa The Hermosa Beach City Council makes the following PLAN Hermosa Project findings. 1.0 CEQA FINDINGS Findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15090, 15091, 15092, 15162 and 15163. 1.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was presented to the Hermosa Beach City Council and all voting members of the City Council have reviewed and considered the FEIR and associated appendices prior to making a recommendation on the PLAN Hermosa. In addition, all voting members of the City Council have reviewed and considered testimony and additional information presented at or prior to the public hearings on July 11, 2017 and July 17, 2017. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and the City of Hermosa Beach and is adequate for this proposal. 1.2 FULL DISCLOSURE The City Council finds and certifies that the FEIR constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate and good faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA. The City Council further finds and certifies the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and Tribal Consultation requirements implemented under Assembly Bill 52 (2014). The omission of some detail or aspect of the Final EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the City. 1.3 LOCATION OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. 1.4 FINDINGS REGARDING THE DRAFT PLAN HERMOSA AND THE FINAL EIR In response to comments from the public and other public agencies, the project has incorporated changes subsequent to publication of the Draft EIR. All of the changes to the Draft EIR are described in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, on the basis of the review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City finds: 1. Factual corrections and minor changes have been set forth as clarifications and modifications to the Draft EIR; 2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR are not substantial changes in the Draft EIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Proposed Project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a feasible project alternative; 3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR will not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft EIR; City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4. The factual corrections and minor changes in the Draft EIR will not involve mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effect on the environment; and 5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR do not render the Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. Thus, none of the conditions set forth in CEQA requiring recirculation of a Draft EIR have been met. Incorporation of the factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR into the Final EIR does not require the EIR be circulated again for public comment. Since the release of the Public Review Draft PLAN Hermosa (December 2015), the Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission held public meetings to review the 2015 Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa between January 2016 and June 2016, and have recommended modifications to the document. The Planning Commission held a study session in November 2016 to review and take input on the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission then held public hearings in February and March 2017, continued over six meetings to hear from the community and go through the proposed plan line by line. Through that process the Commission further refined the proposed policies and implementation actions to reflect the community's long-term vision for the City. The changes to PLAN Hermosa that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council were incorporated into the Planning Commission Recommended Draft of PLAN Hermosa. These changes included input from the Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission, and the public and were included as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council held four Study Sessions to review the Planning Commission recommendations and identify additional changes to PLAN Hermosa. The proposed changes to the project largely clarify and refine policy language without changing the Intent of the PPLAN's goals and objectives. A summary of the changes to PLAN Hermosa and associated implementation actions are provided below by area of environmental analysis: • Aesthetics and Visual Resources - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to policies and implementation actions that add greater specificity and certainty to the process of evaluating future impacts to scenic vistas and methods to avoid significant impacts by including a new map that establishes prominent public viewpoints and uninterrupted scenic viewing areas to PLAN Hermosa. The Planning Commission also recommended deletion of a policy that would direct the City to explore designation of Pacific Coast Highway as a State Scenic Highway. Since it is not currently designated as such, it would not create a new significant impact. Additionally, while changes have been made to policies and implementation actions used in the analysis of visual character and shade/shadow impacts, the changes do not substantially alter the intent or direction provided in the implementation action. The intent was to maintain the public scenic vistas, and through the CEQA process the policies and implementation actions have been improved to provide more certainty as to PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS how public scenic vistas will be maintained and considered when adjacent development is proposed. Further discussion of the changes to Aesthetics Mitigation Measures is provided in Section I.S. Air Quality - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to policies that are considered minor clarifications that do not alter the intent or objective of the policies used in the analysis of impacts to air quality or create new significant impacts because the policies and actions still address short-term construction emissions. The Planning Commission also recommended deletion of an implementation action related to grading and landform, however, the extent to which significant amounts of grading may occur on already undisturbed land in Hermosa Beach, because the community is largely built out, is limited and would still be subject to rules and regulations enforced by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore the removal of this implementation action would not create a new or increased significant air quality impact. Biological Resources - The Planning Commission did not recommend any significant modifications to policies or implementation actions that are used in the analysis of biological resources. Cultural Resources - The Planning Commission recommended modification to one of the implementation actions associated with the analysis of archaeological and paleontological resources in response to comments from the Native American Heritage Commission and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. The change to the implementation action associated with archaeological and paleontological resources was made to add greater specificity and certainty to the process of avoiding resources during ground disturbance activities and would not create a new significant impact. The Planning Commission has recommended the modification and removal of policies and implementation actions related to historical resources to be clear that the designation of historic landmarks is a voluntary program, however the EIR already identified that the PLAN policies could result in a significant and avoidable impact related to historic resources. Further discussion of the changes to mitigation measures related to historic resources and findings that they are infeasible is provided in Section 1.5. Geology and Soils - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to policies that are considered minor clarifications that do not alter the intent or objective of the policies used in the analysis of impacts to geology and soils that would create new significant impacts. The Planning Commission also recommended deletion of an implementation action related to grading and landform, however, the extent to which significant amounts of grading may occur on already undisturbed land in Hermosa Beach, because the community is largely built out, is limited and would still be subject to development standards and application requirements that address potential geology and soils hazards, therefore the removal of this implementation action would not create a new or increased significant geology and soils impact. Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to several policies associated with the analysis of impacts to greenhouse gas emissions that are considered minor clarifications that do not alter the intent or objective of the policy. The Planning Commission also recommended the removal of policies associated with the purchase of carbon City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS offsets and to not pursue carbon neutrality, however the analysis presented in Table 4.6-6 of the Draft EIR demonstrates that the "Purchase Offsets" line item, representing 30.1 % of the emissions reductions, could be eliminated and the greenhouse gas thresholds to reduce emissions consistent with long-term State greenhouse gas reduction goals (66% below 2005 levels by 2040) would still be met or exceeded with a reduction of approximately 69.9%. The analysis in the Draft EIR related to greenhouse gas emissions specifically did not rely upon offsets to determine whether or not State goals would be met through the implementation of policies and therefore, the removal of policies related to offsets would not create a new significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. The City Council has also recommended modifications to the municipal greenhouse gas reduction goal based on further evaluation and deliberation. Rather than setting a goal to reach municipal carbon neutrality by 2020, Council has recommended a goal to meet or exceed an 80% reduction in municipal greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in comparison to 2005 levels. Given the progress between 2005 and 2015, the projects recently completed or anticipated to be completed in the next few years, and the previous direction from City Council not to pursue the use of carbon credits or offsets, the City is on course to reduce municipal emissions by approximately 58% by 2020 from 2005 levels, which exceeds the direct emissions reductions identified in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan, but does not reach the previously adopted carbon neutral goal for municipal facilities by 2020. PLAN Hermosa includes Sustainability + Conservation Element Goal 1 to meet or exceed an 80% reduction in municipal greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 through projects that will directly reduce emissions from municipal facilities and operations (rather than through offsets). While the goal does not commit to carbon neutrality for the municipality as previously indicated in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan, Goal 1 and the associated policies will lead to a greater level of direct, measureable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than identified in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. Given that the revised goal would result in a greater level or direct and measurable reductions in municipal greenhouse gas emissions, this change to the municipal greenhouse gas reduction goal would not create a new significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. • Hydrology and Water Quality - The Planning Commission did not recommend any significa�difications to policies or implementation ac ion—stha are used in the analysis of hydrology and water quality. The Planning Commission recommended the inclusion of new maps within PLAN Hermosa that more clearly depict the range of potential scenarios associated with sea level rise, however these updated maps do not present any greater flooding extent than was previously identified by the maps included in the Draft EIR and therefore would not create a new significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. • Land Use and Planning - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to several policies and implementation actions associated with the analysis of impacts to land use and planning. These changes are considered minor clarifications that do not alter the intent or objective of the policies but add PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS greater specificity and certainty to how the City will achieve consistency between the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and future updates to the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission has also recommended minor refinements to the Land Use Designations Map that covers less than a dozen parcels along PCH that had a Land Use Designation in the adopted General Plan of commercial uses, but zoning that allowed for residential development and over the course of the General Plan update have been redeveloped for residential use. These changes represent less than a fraction of a percent of the land area in Hermosa Beach and therefore would not create a new significant impact to land use and planning. • Mineral Resources - The Planning Commission did not recommend any modifications to policies or implementation actions that are used in the analysis of mineral resources. Noise and Vibration - The Planning Commission did not recommend any significant modifications to policies or implementation actions that are used in the analysis of noise and vibration. • Population and Housing - The Planning Commission did not recommend any significant modifications to policies or implementation actions that are used in the analysis of population and housing. • Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to several policies and implementation actions associated with the analysis of public services, community facilities, and utilities. The Planning Commission did not propose changes to the policies or implementation actions used in the analysis that would increase demand for: fire protection and emergency medical services; law enforcement services; public schools; library facilities; or water supply and service, wastewater service, storm drainage. The Planning Commission has recommended changes to policies and implementation actions associated with the analysis of impacts to parks and recreation, solid waste disposal, and energy resources, but these changes are considered minor clarifications that do not alter the intent or objective of the policies that would create new significant impacts. The Planning Commission has also recommended modifications to the map of parks, open space and public facilities in Hermosa Beach to highlight some of the City's existing facilities such as the skate park that is located at the community center and to add smaller parkettes that were not previously identified. These changes to the map do not increase demand for parks and recreation, rather they highlight additional facilities that are already available to meet current and future demand and therefore would not create a new significant impact. • Transportation - The Planning Commission recommended modifications to several policies and implementation actions associated with the analysis of impacts to transportation. These changes are considered minor clarifications that do not alter the intent or objective of the policies but adds greater specificity and certainty to how the City will achieve consistency between the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and future updates to the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission also recommended minor refinements to the street classifications, pedestrian network, and bicycle and multi -use network maps and the addition of a proposed safe routes to school network to be incorporated into PLAN Hermosa. These changes to the map do not increase demand for such City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 5 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS facilities, rather they highlight certain routes that may be ideal for various bike and pedestrian improvements that would not affect level of service capacity, but could help to improve safety and therefore would not create a new significant impact. Pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the changes would not result in any new significant environmental impacts nor substantially increase the severity of significant impacts described in the EIR. In reviewing the Implementation Actions, the Commission reviewed which implementation actions were specifically used in the EIR impact analysis to make sure that the changes would not alter the ultimate conclusions or analysis in the EIR. These changes to the implementation action are provided in the revised project description in Attachment 1 B. The minor revisions/clarifications to the policy language would not change any of the conclusions in the EIR. Substantial revisions to the EIR are not necessary and, recirculation of the EIR is not required. 1.5 FINDINGS ADDRESSING THE ISSUES ANALYZED IN THE FEIR 1.5.1 FINDINGS THAT NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION WAS CONDUCTED In accordance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Government Code 69352.3, and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Government Code 21000, the City of Hermosa Beach requested a list of Tribal Organization contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission in April 2014. The City of Hermosa Beach sent notifications to the appropriate tribal organizations in January 2015 in compliance with SB 18, and again in August 2015 to comply with AB 52. In response to these letters, the City received requests from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation to conduct formal consultation with the tribes. Both tribes requested that an experienced, trained, and certified Native American monitor be present during ground disturbing activities related to the project. Following the initial request for consultation from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the City pursued consultation. However, the Band has failed to provide comments to the City, or otherwise failed to engage, in the consultation process. Therefore, consultation with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians has concluded under Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21082.3(d)(2). The City has engaged in lengthy consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Irrd'rarrs — Kizh-Nation; as-rfiot-ed-in-the- Res pons-es-to-Comment-'in the-Final-FR NA-H and GMBI-1-2. Since PLAN Hermosa is a program -level document that will not directly result in physical changes to the environment, the City proposed policies and implementation actions that take into consideration the tribal organization requests for subsequent projects with ground disturbance activities that may occur through implementation of PLAN Hermosa. To more explicitly address the Band's request for a Native American monitor to be present during ground disturbing activities, the City proposes amending implementation action LAND USE-23 to explicitly require the City to weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to complete a training on PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or requiring a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities. This is an appropriate response for a Program -level analysis, since site specific impacts cannot be detailed at this time and would be speculative. This implementation action, as amended, would ensure the consultation requirements of AB 52 are followed by the City as a Lead Agency, and that requirements for Native American monitors to be present during ground -disturbing activities in which a tribe or archaeological investigation indicate the potential for tribal resources to be found are clear. Following multiple requests for feedback on the City's proposed response, the Band has not provided a formal response. The City has acted in good faith and has provided a reasonable effort to respond to the Band's request for monitors, but without a timely response, the City is unable to reach a mutual agreement. Consultation is hereby concluded. 1.5.2 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE The FEIR for PLAN Hermosa identifies impacts in three resource areas - air quality, cultural resources, and transportation-- that cannot be fully mitigated and are therefore considered significant and unavoidable. The impact areas pertain to short- term impacts to air quality; potential changes to the significance of historical resources; and reductions to transportation and circulation Level of Service (LOS) performance standards at three intersections and one roadway segment. To the extent that the impacts remain significant and unavoidable such impacts are acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, legal, technical, and other considerations, including the beneficial effects of the project to the existing circulation and infrastructure, described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein. For each of these significant and unavoidable impacts identified by the FEIR, feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as discussed below: a. 4.2-2 Violate Air Quality Standards - Short -Term Impacts Impact: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in a manner that could generate air pollutant emissions from short-term construction. Although PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and enforcement of current SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce short-term emissions, construction emissions would result in a significant impact. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Mitigation Measures: MM 4.2-2a Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: • All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twit daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. • The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. • All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. • All dirt/soil materials transported off -site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. • General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. • Trucks having no current hauling acrivUy shall not idle but shall be turned off. MM 4.2-2b In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel -fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location. MM 4.2-2c Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural Coatin s. MM 4.2-2d Construction projects within the city shall install odor -reducing equipment in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138. MM 4.2-2e Project applicants shall identify all measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below SCAQMD thresholds prior to the issuance of building permits. Should attainment o SCAQMD thresholds be determined to be infeasible, construction contractors shall provide evidence of this to the City and will be encouraged to apply for SCAQMD SOON funds. Finding: Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2a through 4.2- 2e, SCAQMD Rule 403 and PLAN Hermosa policies, it is still anticipated that some projects would have the potential to generate daily construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Because the intensity and schedule of construction activities cannot be determined at the time of this program -level analysis, it would be speculative to conclude that any level of mitigation would reduce daily construction emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON" program provides funds to accelerate clean-up of off -road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. In many cases, because of the amount of construction required for a project, even if all feasible mitigation is implemented, daily emissions could still exceed the significance thresholds. The City Council finds that the impact as stated above is substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures and that all feasible mitigation measures that are PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS appropriate at the Program -level have been incorporated. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). b. 4.2-7 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Impact: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated growth in the South Coast Air Basin would increase the amount of air quality emissions occurring within the basin and could affect the region's ability to attain ambient air quality standards. This would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation Measures: Implement mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e. Finding: Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2a through 4.2-2e, SCAQMD Rule 403 and PLAN Hermosa policies, it is still anticipated that future construction projects, in combination with other construction in the SCAQMD area, could have the potential to generate construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance on a cumulative basis. While the City of Hermosa Beach has the ability to reduce air quality impacts through the implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e, when combined with potential exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds of significance by other projects in the SCAQMD region, the contribution of projects in Hermosa Beach may be cumulatively considerable. The City Council finds that the impact as stated above is substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures and that no other feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project are available, and the City of Hermosa Beach jurisdiction to implement mitigation measures is limited to projects within Hermosa Beach. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). c. 4.4-4 Historical Resources Impact: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would provide for future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Although implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and actions would protect historical resources, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Mitigation Measures: NM 4.4-4a he City shall require project applicants of discretionary projects to conduct historical esources studies, surveys, and assessment reports on a project -by -project basis, when a roject proposes to alter, demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential andmark as defined by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.53. 1AM 4.4-4b he City shall maintain the "Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach" guide, and shall update the guide so that it is informed by current resource data and its goals and olicies are consistent with the Land Use + Design Element. NM 4.4-4c The City shall develop procedures and nomination applications to facilitate and streamline the designation of local historic sites and historic districts. NM 4.4-4d Historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports shall be performed by ersons who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for rchoeology and Historic Preservation 48 CFR 44716). Finding: • The Final EIR included a Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4a that upon further review has been determined to be infeasible and the Planning Commission recommended this mitigation measure be removed in its entirety. First, it is unclear how this measure applies in Hermosa Beach, because the Municipal Code definitions for resources and landmarks are not the some as under CEQA, creating confusion as to what properties must be on a potential resource list. Second, CEQA already requires that environmental analysis be completed for any discretionary project that may impact an historic resource. CEQA applies to discretionary projects regardless of whether the City maintains a list of potential resources and by preparing a list of potential resources that identifies specific properties, the list could be misconstrued as a list of designated landmarks, which carry a different level of review and procedures established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the Municipal Code. For this reason, the proposed mitigation in infeasible. • MM4.4-4a is amended to clarify that discretionary projects are required under CEQA to conduct an historical assessment. The City does not have authority to require studies for ministerial projects and those projects only require ministerial building permits and do not receive any discretionary planning review. The measure is also amended to reflect the definition of landmark, as that term is used in the Hermosa Beach Historic Resource Preservation Ordinance. • The Final EIR included a Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4f that upon further review has been determined to be infeasible and the Planning Commission recommended this mitigation measure be removed in its entirety. While the intent of MM 4.4-4f was to apply to designated historical landmarks, the wording could be interpreted more broadly and would effectively prohibit any changes to buildings considered to be potential historic resources and when modified to only apply to designated historical landmarks, it becomes duplicative with requirements under State Law regarding the treatment of designated historical resources, and interpreted more broadly could impede the City's greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability goals by (for example) preventing upgrades to structures to be more energy efficient. Implementation of the remaining mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4- 4d would reduce impacts on historical resources to the extent feasible. However, PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 10 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS impacts on potentially eligible historic structures could occur depending on the proposed uses, the cost of rehabilitation, and safety and other considerations. Thus, it may not be feasible in all circumstances to rehabilitate a structure and retain its historic significance. If a project applicant proposes to demolish an eligible structure, the City would consider the project's impacts prior to approval. The City Council finds that the impact as stated above is substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures, that all feasible mitigation measures that are appropriate at the Program -level have been incorporated, and that no other feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project are available. The Final EIR included a Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4f that upon further review has been determined to be infeasible and that the City Council recommends this mitigation measure be removed in its entirety. While the intent of MM 4.4-4f was to apply to designated historical landmarks, the wording could be interpreted more broadly and would effectively prohibit any changes to buildings considered to be potential historic resources and when modified to only apply to designated historical landmarks, it becomes duplicative with requirements under State Law regarding the treatment of designated historical resources, and interpreted more broadly could impede the City's greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability goals. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). d. 4.4-8 Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources Impact: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated future development in the South Bay Cities COG planning area could cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource. The loss of some historical resources may be prevented through implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and similar policies in other communities. However, this would not ensure that these resources can be protected and preserved. This impact would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures: Implement mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4-d. Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-4a through MM 4.4-4d would not ensure that all historical resources would be protected and preserved within the South Bay Cities COG planning area. As described in the analysis presented in Impact 4.4-4, impacts on historic resources could still occur and the impact cannot be reduced to less than significant. The City Council finds that the impact as stated above is substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures, that no other feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project are available, and the City of Hermosa Beach jurisdiction to implement mitigation measures is limited to projects within Hermosa Beach. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 11 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). e. 4.14-1 a Intersections • Pacific Coast Hwy and Artesia Blvd Impact: The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard would be significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa -related traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. Opportunities for physical mitigations are limited by Caltrans's plan to remove a travel lane in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway and alignment issues, as well as major change in roadway characteristics, east to west from Artesia Boulevard to Gould Avenue. Additionally, physical mitigations would conflict with the SBBMP Class III bicycle facility planned for Gould Avenue, as well as PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5. Due to the above -mentioned conflicts between physical mitigations and PLAN Hermosa and adopted plans, the significant transportation impacts on traffic operations at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway & Artesia Boulevard cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant transportation and circulation impact. Finding: Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted locations at which a vehicular -capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans. The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance or safety of the facility. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 12 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pacific Coast Hwy and Aviation Blvd Impact: The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard is significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa -related traffic in the morning peak period. Opportunities for physical mitigations are limited by Caltrans's plan to remove a travel lane in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway and improvement plans for the intersection included in the Aviation Boulevard Master Plan, including enhanced crosswalks and repurposing of public right of way for parkettes, pedestrian space, or a crossing refuge. Additionally, physical mitigations would conflict with the SBBMP Class II bicycle facility planned for Aviation Boulevard, as well as PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5. Due to the above -mentioned conflicts between physical mitigations to improve level of service and PLAN Hermosa and adopted plans, the significant transportation impacts to traffic operations at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway & Aviation Boulevard cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant transportation and circulation impact. Finding: Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted locations at which a vehicular -capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans. The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance or safety of the facility. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). Manhattan Ave and 27th St Impact: The intersection at Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street is significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa -related traffic in the morning peak period. Opportunities for physical mitigations are limited by existing narrow roadway widths. Additionally, City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 13 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS physical mitigations would conflict with the SBBMP Class III bicycle facility planned for 27fh Street, and PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5. Due to the above -mentioned conflicts between physical mitigations to improve level of service and PLAN Hermosa policies and adopted plans, the significant transportation impacts to traffic operations at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue & 271h Street cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant transportation and circulation impact. Finding: Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted locations at which a vehicular -capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans. The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance or safety of the facility. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social., economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). f. 4.14-1 b Roadway Segments • Prospect-A-v�(-Aviation-ivd-to3^d-St) Impact: Through implementation of PLAN Hermosa, the roadway segment on Prospect Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 2�d Street would be degraded from its current operation at an LOS C to an LOS D by 2040. While this is improved from the projected LOS E that would be experienced under the 2040 scenario without PLAN Hermosa, it still represents a significant impact. In other words, even though the PLAN Hermosa policies will reduce the degree of impact from the scenario where the PLAN is not adopted, the change in traffic still exceeds the threshold of significance. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 14 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS In order to reduce the projected LOS impacts along Prospect Avenue, the City would need to consider expanding the roadway to accommodate additional vehicles or consider policies that reduce the number of vehicles traveling along the corridor. However, the opportunities for expanding Prospect Avenue to reduce the impacts to LOS are limited by the narrow roadway widths and presence of on -street parking. Additionally, physical mitigations to expand roadway capacity along Prospect Avenue would conflict with the intent of SB 743 and many of the proposed PLAN Hermosa policies. Under SB 743 Section 21099(b) (2), vehicular capacity and traffic congestion would no longer be eligible as considerations of significant impact under CEQA. Guidelines established for the implementation of SB 743 further state that roadway capacity expansions in a congested corridor are presumed to cause a significant impact under CEQA due to their effects on induced travel. Physical mitigations would also conflict with the SBBMP bicycle friendly street bicycle facility planned for Prospect Avenue, and PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element policies 1.1, 2.1, 3.6, 7.2, 7.5. Due to the above -mentioned conflicts between capacity expansion mitigations and SB 743, the SBBMP, and PLAN Hermosa policies, the significant transportation impact to traffic operations along the segment of Prospect Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 2nd Street cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level; therefore this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant transportation and circulation impact. Finding: Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The removal of on -street parking along this roadway segment to accommodate an additional lane of travel would create untenable conditions in Hermosa Beach where parking supply is limited. Therefore it is not feasible. The emphasis was to identify physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted locations at which a vehicular -capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans. The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance or safety of the facility. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 15 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS g. 4.14-7 Cumulative Exceedance of LOS Performance Standards Impact: PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the City in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within the city. Both the City's and Caltrans's existing level of service standards for intersections and roadway segments would be maintained at the majority of intersections and segments analyzed. Nonetheless, three intersections and one segment would experience a cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available to address the significant transportation and circulation impact. Finding: Opportunities for physical mitigation measures, such as restriping of intersection approaches to add turn lanes, were investigated. The emphasis was to identify physical improvements that could be implemented efficiently and maintain consistency with PLAN Hermosa goals. Mitigation measures were reviewed for compliance or conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Mitigations that decrease the performance or safety of such facilities were not considered. No mitigation measures could be applied to significantly impacted locations at which a vehicular -capacity based mitigation without creating a conflict with PLAN Hermosa goals or other adopted plans. The City Council finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures within the scope of the project available to address or lessen the impact without conflicting with PLAN Hermosa goals and policies or decreasing the performance or safety of the facility. The City Council further finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forti1 in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 1.6 of these Findings). 1.5.3 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO INSIGNIFICANCE The FEIR identifies subject areas for which the project is considered to cause or contribute to potentially significant environmental impacts. For each of these impacts identified by the FEIR, feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce the environmental effect to a level that is less than significant, as discussed below: a. 4.1-1 Scenic Vistas and Viewsheds Impact: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts are substantially reduced by changes to the PLAN Hermosa Policies and Implementation Actions to a level that is considered to be less than significant. The PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions, as revised, would ensure that existing view corridors that provide views of the Pacific Ocean, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Santa Monica PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 16 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Mountains, and the Los Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains are maintained by identifying prominent and uninterrupted public views, specifying an evaluation process and offering development standard exceptions to projects that may substantially impede one of the identified public scenic vistas. Finding: The EIR reached the original impact conclusion (that mitigation was required) for Impact 4.1-1 because the policies and implementation actions did not include "specific provisions to protect public view corridors." Thus, mitigation was required. The proposed changes to the policies and actions related to public views are designed to provide more specificity on the expectation and process for identifying, evaluating, and addressing potential impacts to scenic vistas in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The greater level of specificity contained within the policies and implementation actions further helps to appropriately guide City staff and decision makers in the future to objectively and consistently and reasonably evaluate and mitigate impacts to scenic vistas, and provide the opportunity for setback, open space, landscaping or other relief to properties that may otherwise substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from a scenic vista. This allows the property owner to minimize the impact to a public view while providing the owner the same development privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity (similar to a variance). The specific exception to be applied to each project will be evaluated on a project level to determine its appropriateness and compatibility with the neighborhood and the list of available exceptions will be specified in the zoning ordinance. Through the public hearing process, the community and commissioners have had an opportunity to synthesize PLAN Hermosa Figure 5.3, which shows the proposed Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. Based on community and commissioner input, the Figure has been revised to remove two sites that do not meet the criteria for Prominent Public Views. The two views deleted include 8th Street at Loma Drive and El Oeste Drive. The 8th/Loma location can be deleted because the view is already surrounded by properties that have been developed close to or at the maximum extent allowed and therefore, future development during the life of the plan will not further impact the view beyond the existing development. The El Oeste viewpoint can be deleted because, while it presents a highly intact uninterrupted view, it does not meet the prominent viewpoint criteria of having a large number of public viewers. This location is at the end of a dead end residential street where the general public does not typically access, pass or congregate. Therefore, it would be unlikely to have a large number of public viewers. The language incorporated into the policies and actions has been changed such that properties adjacent to, rather than within 50 feet of, the Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas will be required to evaluate and reasonably mitigate any substantial impact to a public view. Additionally, portions of Implementation Action PARKS-12 have been removed because of their City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 17 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS specificity to appropriate colors and textures and the portions of the actions pertaining to public works projects have been incorporated into PARKS-11. To specify appropriate colors or textures to private property owners would go against a long-standing community policy against judging or dictating design. These language changes are also appropriate because the 50 foot requirement, as well as the requirements for specific screening methods or use of certain materials may not be appropriate in all situations and does not allow for any site specific flexibility. Additionally, the language was too precise for policy language and implementation actions (and for the originally proposed mitigation measure). These types of details are better worked out through the implementation process and development of the ordinance. In some cases 50 feet may be too far, and in others it may not be far enough. There are site specific conditions like width of the road, setback requirements, and building height limits (vary from 25-35 feet) that may require variation in the distance needed to analyze impacts to views. It is further noted that the changes to the policies and implementation actions related to public views achieve the same purpose as proposed Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, that the potential impact to scenic vistas is adequately mitigated to a level that is less than significant, and that no new significant impacts to Aesthetics have been identified based on these changes. b. 4.3-1 Special -Status Species Impact: PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could result in the development or expansion of beach -supporting uses that could adversely affect western snowy plover and California least tern. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mltr otron Measures: M 4.3-1 Construction of facilities on the beach that must occur between the months of April and August (roosting season for snowy plovers) will require preconstruction surveys to determine the presence of western snowy plovers or California least terns. If these species are present, no construction may occur until the species leave the roost based on review by a qualified biologist and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If the project is within a Special Protection Zone, construction activities will not be allowed until western snowy plovers are no longer present. If the area is not within a Special Protection Zone, a qualified biologist will survey the area for western snowy plovers using established protocols and in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if plovers are present. If they are present, no work wlil occur until after snowy plovers leave the roost site for the season. The qualified biologist will also survey the area for California least terns using established protocols and in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW to determine if California least terns are present. If surveys are negative for western snowy plovers or California least terns, work may proceed during the roosting period and the biologist will be present to monitor the establishment of the beach landing sites to ensure that no western snowy plovers or California least terns are injured or killed, should they arrive in the area subsequent to work commencing. The project will include fencing/walls that will prevent western snowy plovers or California least terns from entering the work areas. The biologist will conduct weekly site visits to ensure that fencing/walls are intact until construction activities are finished at the sites and all equipment is removed from the beach. The results of the preconstruction survey will be submitted to the City prior to the establishment of beach landing sites. All biological monitoring efforts will be documented in monthly compliance. reports to the City. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 18 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Finding: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3-1 would specifically require that western snowy plovers or California least terns that roost on the beach are protected if they occur in an area proposed for beach -supporting facilities. c. 4.4-3 Paleontological Resources, Site, or Geologic Feature Impact: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could damage previously unknown unique paleontological resources, sites, or unique geologic features. This impact would be potentially significant. milr anon measures: MM 4.4-3 As a standard condition of approval for future development projects implemented under PLAN Hermosa that involve ground disturbance or excavation: • For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed al depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits, a qualified paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities. • If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. Finding: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-3 would provide for the appropriate treatment and/or preservation of paleontological resources, if encountered. For instance, a paleontological resource evaluation would consist of a paleontological resources records search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, a pedestrian survey of the project site (if applicable), a review of the land use history, and a review of geologic mapping and/or geotechnical reports. At that point, appropriate project - specific mitigation would be developed and implemented to mitigate impacts on the paleontological resource before construction activities can resume. d. 4.4-7 Cumulative Effects on Paleontological Resources Impact: Ground disturbance, earthmoving, and excavation activities associated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa combined with construction activities in the City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 19 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS South Bay Cities COG planning area could damage previously unknown unique paleontological resources. This impact would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures: Implement mitigation measure MM 4.4-3. Finding: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that is considered to be less than significant. Ground disturbance, earthmoving, and excavation activities would occur under PLAN Hermosa and in the South Bay Cities COG planning area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-3 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources by requiring that fossil specimens be recovered and recorded and undergo appropriate curation, in the event that resources are encountered during construction activities in Hermosa Beach. Thus, the city will not be contributing to any cumulative impact in the South Bay planning area. e. 4.6-1 Generate GHG Emissions Impact: PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could result in additional greenhouse gas emissions generated. However, the plan also includes numerous policies and actions to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions from both new and existing development through incentives and voluntary actions that will meet or exceed the long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals to reduce emissions at least 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2040 (see discussion on page 4.6-22) through direct and local programs. However, since the City is relying on incentive -based or voluntary actions to achieve GHG reduction goals, there is a lower degree of certainty that the emissions reductions thresholds would be met compared to regulatory or mandatory actions. This impact would be potentially significant. N1rr! aTion measures: MM 4.6-1a The City of Hermosa Beach will utilize the climate action plan, under development by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, or other appropriate tools to research current data gaps, identify specific actions, and define the responsible parties and time frames needed to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals (monitoring milestones) identified in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1 b. MIA 4.6-lb The City of Hermosa Beach will re -inventory community GHG emissions and evaluate implementation progress of policies to reduce GHG emissions for the calendar year of 2020 and a minimum of every five years thereafter. The interim reduction goals to be achieved for consistency with long-term state goals include: 2020: 15 percent below 2005 levels • 2025: 31 percent below 2005 levels 2030: 49 percent below 2005 levels • 2035: 57 percent below 2005 levels • 2040: 66 percent below 2005 levels MIA 4.6-1c The City will revise PLAN Hermosa and/or the City's Climate Action Plan when, upon evaluation required in mitigation measure MM 4.6-1 b, the City determines that Hermosa Beach is not on track to meet the applicable GHG reduction goals. Revisions to PLAN Hermosa, the Climate Action Plan, or other C4y policies and pro2rams will include PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 20 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS additional regulatory measures that provide a higher degree of certainty that emissions reduction targets will be met. Use of an adaptive management approach would allow the City to evaluate progress by activity sector (e.g.. transportation, energy, water, waste) and prescribe additional policies or programs to be implemented in the intervening five years for activity sectors that are not on track to achieve the GHG reduction 2oais. Finding: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6- 1 a through c, commits the City of Hermosa Beach to achieving specific emissions reduction targets within every five-year time period and modifying policies and programs, including the addition of new policies or modification of existing policies to become mandatory, to achieve greater levels of emissions reductions if the City falls short of meeting the established targets in MM 4.6-1 b. The implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in conjunction with mitigation measures MM 4.6-1 a through MM 4.6-1 c, will add the degree of certainty needed to determine that PLAN Hermosa would have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and would not be cumulatively considerable. f. 4.7-2 Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Impact: Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in a manner that could lead to accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with existing federal and state regulations and implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies would reduce risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. However, development of the City's Maintenance Yard or other sites in the city could release known or unknown hazardous materials which would be potentially significant. Mitt acton Measures: MM 4.7-2a For any development activities that would encroach upon or take place at the City's Maintenance Yard, the City shall require the preparation and implementation of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to be approved by the ro riate agencies. MM 4.7-2b Future discretionary projects involving the use of hazardous materials that may be accidentally released or encountered during construction shall be required to implemeni the following procedures: Stop all work in the vicinity of any discovered contamination or release. Identify the scope and immediacy of the problem. - Coordinate with responsible agencies (Department of Toxic Substances Control. Regional Water Quality Control Board, or US Environmental Protection Agency). Conduct the necessary investigation and remediation activities to resolve the situation before continuing construction work as required by state and local Finding: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 21 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4.7-2a and MM 4.7-2b would ensure that accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, either from redevelopment at the City Yard of from unknown contamination, would be remediated in accordance with state and local regulations in a manner that would protect public health during construction activities and later use of the site. g. 4.11-2 Groundborne Vibrations or Groundborne Noise Levels Impact: PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that may expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is a potentially significant impact. Mite anon Measures: MM 4.11-2 For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards would be exceeded, the City shall require the applicant to have a structural engineer prepare a report demonstrating the following: Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in Draft EIR Table 4.114 as standards. Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded. A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post -construction and post -demolition surveys of existing structures that would be impacted. Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition o construction include but are not limited to: Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment. Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment. Specifying demolition by non -impact methods, such as sawing concrete. Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources. Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision -making for subsequen activities. Finding: The City Council finds that the potentially significant impacts, as stated above, are substantially reduced by the identified mitigation measures to a level that is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1 1-2 would minimize impacts on sensitive structures from groundborne vibration to acceptable levels. 1.5.4 FINDING THAT MITIGATION OF CERTAIN IMPACTS IS WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY AND JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY No mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency. 1.5.5 FINDINGS THAT IDENTIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES OR MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT FEASIBLE All mitigation measures discussed herein are feasible. Where potential mitigation has been deemed infeasible, it is discussed in the DEIR and above sections. All feasible PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 22 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS mitigation has been recommended and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project. The FEIR examines three alternatives: • Alternative 1 - Retain Existing General Plan/ Coastal Land Use Plan • Alternative 2 - Achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2030 • Alternative 3 - Stronger Retention of Visual and Cultural Resources a. Alternative 1: Retain Existing General Plan Coastal Land Use Plan Alternative: This alternative assumes that PLAN Hermosa would not be implemented and that future development would proceed as indicated in the existing General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Hermosa Beach would continue to grow and develop consistent with currently allowable land uses according to the existing 1980 Land Use Element (Figure 33); however, redevelopment patterns would be expected to be similar to PLAN Hermosa because the same infill properties would be vacant or available for redevelopment, resulting in increased intensity of development within an identical development footprint as PLAN Hermosa. Table 6.0-2 provides an estimate of what density or intensity of development is estimated to be allowed under the adopted General Plan, compared to the proposed densities and intensities of PLAN Hermosa. Note that the existing General Plan does not include Floor Area Ratios (FAR) but has setback and height requirements which can be used to calculate an estimate of FAR allowed based on recent approved or constructed projects. Table 6.0-2 Comparison of Allowed/Estimated Densit►. and Intensity No Project Alternative Proposed under PLAN Hermosa Allowed Density/Intensity Comparison of No Project to PLAN Hermosa ILand Use Designation Max Min Max Low Density du/ac 13.0 2.0 13.0 Similar Medium Density du/ac 25.0 13.1 25.0 Similar Ili h Density du/ac 33.0 25.1 33.0 Similar Mobile Home du/ac 13.0 2.0 13.0 Similar Neighborhood Commercial FAR 1.0 0.5 1.0 Similar ::ommunify Commercial FAR 1.75 0.5 1.25 Greater Recreational Commercial FARI 2.5 1.0 1.75 Greater Sateway Commercial FAR 1.5 1.0 2.0 Lesser Service Commercial FAR 1.0 0.25 0.5 Greater Light Industrial Creative FAR 0.75 0.25 1.0 Lesser °ublic Facilities FAR n/a 0.1 1.0 Similar Open Space FAR n/a 0.0 0.1 Similar lCity Beach FAR n/a 0.0 0.05 Similar Source: City of Hermosa Beach, 2015. Italicized lines indicate new or altered land use designations introduced through PLAN Hermosa. This alternative is analyzed in this EIR, as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), the "no project" analysis shall discuss "what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 23 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." As shown in Table 6.0-2, the No Project Alternative would allow for similar levels of residential development as PLAN Hermosa. For nonresidential development, the No Project Alternative would allow for greater levels of development in the Community Commercial, Recreational Commercial, Service Commercial designations, and lesser levels of development in the Gateway Commercial and Light Industrial Creative designation than is proposed under PLAN Hermosa. All other nonresidential or institutional categories propose similar levels of allowed development intensity for both PLAN Hermosa and the No Project Alternative. Additionally, as shown in Table 6.0-3 (No Project/Existing General Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Trips Generated), Alternative 1 would result in 30,000 more VMT per day and 2,600 more daily vehicle trips compared to PLAN Hermosa. Table 6.0-3 No Project/Existing General Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Trips Generated Scenario (Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Daily Vehicle Trips :2040No Project Alternative 356,000 37,200 :2040 PLAN Hermosa 326,000 34,600 Source: City of Hermosa Beach Traffic Study 2015 Finding: The City Council finds that: Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives established for PLAN Hermosa. The existing General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan can reasonably achieve project objectives to enhance and support a strong, diverse, and vibrant local economy (Objective 2) and provide a safe and clean natural environment (Objective 4) by relying on the existing policies and programs related to economic development and resource conservation. Additionally, the existing General Plan contains an element on Urban Design, however it fails to establish various character areas and identify the unique characteristics of each area, making it difficult to effectively achieve project Objective 1, to preserve the city's small beach town character. Finally, while the existing General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan contain policies and programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled and expand alternative modes of transportation, these documents do not identify promoting healthy and active lifestyles (Objective 3) and achieving a low -carbon future (Objective 5) as the primary motivation for including such policies, nor do the mobility policies and programs contained within the existing General Plan advance the reduction in VMT enough to claim that they can effectively achieve Objectives 3 and 5. Comparison of Environmental Impacts The No Project Alternative would not lessen any environmental impacts compared to the proposed project, and instead would have greater impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services, community facilities, and utilities, and transportation. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised August 2027 24 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Feasibilffy Alternative 1 is infeasible as it would not meet the updated goals and policies clearly expressed by the City of Hermosa Beach and set forth in the PLAN Hermosa such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating a vibrant local economy and a fostering a healthy and safe environment. The City is committed to providing the community with a current, long-range planning document that is reflective of the changing conditions and new state requirements (i.e., AB 32 and SB 375), as well as consistent with current planning trends, as proposed in the PLAN Hermosa. The existing General Plan does not address current planning trends or new state requirements. Because of these factors, the existing General Plan would not adequately address the economic, environmental, and social needs of the community. Given that this alternative would not achieve the project objectives and also would not lessen any environmental impacts compared to the proposed project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible. b. Alternative 2: Achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2030 Alternative: This alternative would be focused on achieving a community -wide goal of carbon neutrality by 2030. Carbon neutrality is the state of achieving net zero carbon emissions, generally by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset by the community. There are two primary differences between this alternative and the Public Review draft of PLAN Hermosa which included a goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than the year 2040: T . expediting achievement of a carbon neutral goal by ten years from 2040 to 2030 and 2. bypassing the use of carbon credits to offset carbon emissions that could not be eliminated. Changing these two parameters would have a number of effects on the proposed project. While the total level of local reductions needed to achieve a carbon neutral goal by 2030 or 2040 are virtually identical, the number of years to achieve the goal would be reduced from 24 years to just 14. A 2030 goal would necessitate the implementation of new policies and programs each year to reduce emissions at a rate of 6,750 MTCO2e/yr, compared to annual reductions of 3,975 MTCO2e/yr for a 2040 goal. To do this, the following steps would be taken to modify PLAN Hermosa to increase and accelerate the rate of carbon emissions reductions from the energy, waste and transportation sectors: • Require onsite renewable energy generation and Zero Net Energy as part of all new construction and major building renovations. • Mandate retrofits to existing buildings to improve energy efficiency at time of sale, through rental inspections, and prior to issuance of building permits. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 25 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS • Eliminate the use of natural gas within the city through the installation of biogas technologies and electrification of heating and cooking appliances and fixtures within the building stock. • Participate in a Community Choice Aggregation program or other similar program and procure or generate renewable energy to account for 100% of the energy portfolio by increasing the rate of installation for local renewable energy generation sources or procuring long-term renewable energy contracts for sources outside of the city. • Modify Land Use Designations to facilitate mixed -use development and increase commercial and residential densities within the Community Commercial and Gateway Commercial designations to facilitate shorter trips lengths and increase the number of trips captured internally. • Mandate public and private clean fuel and electric vehicle infrastructure to facilitate deployment of electric vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles and/or clean fuel vehicles. • Modify parking standards and programs to disincentivize conventionally fueled automobile use, and incentivize alternative modes of transportation and zero - emission vehicle use through programs that include, but are not limited to: increases in the cost of public -parking, elimination of parking minimums and establishment of maximums for new development, elimination of practices to assign parking spaces to particular uses, and changes to the preferential parking permit program. • Pursue regional transportation projects and infrastructure to facilitate carbon -free regional travel options. • Mandate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for institutions and businesses. • Accelerate the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle network investments, electric vehicle and alternative fuel infrastructure, programs to achieve zero waste, and net zero energy requirements. This Carbon Neutral by 2030 Alternative with the added or modified policies would result in greater levels of emissions reductions compared to the policies and programs proposed in PLAN Hermosa, as noted in Table 6.0-4. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 26 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Table 6.0-4 Comparison of Emissions Reduction Scenarios 2030 vs 2040 Baseline 2005 Emissions 2012 Emissions BAU Emissions (2040) State Programs (2040) Local Remaining Emissions to be Reduced 137,160 126,610 128,290 33,750 94,540 -7.7% +5.0% -27.7% 137,160 126,610 133,430 38,010 95,420 New Construction Residential Efficiency -0.8% 1,090 -1.3% 1,810 Existing Buildings Residential Efficiency -4.4% 6,100 -4.4% 6,100 New Construction Non -Residential Efficiency -1.2% 1,690 -2.0% 2,810 Existing Buildings Non -Residential Efficiency -2.0% 2,770 I -2.0% 2,770 Sub Total -8.517o 11,650 ` -9.8% 13,490 Rooftop Solar -5.8% 8,020 -5.9% 8,100 Community Solar -27.0% 36,990 -0.4% 550 Renewable Energy Procurement -7.5% 10,290 -7.3% 10,010 Purchased Renewables (Green Rate) , -0.0% 0 I -0.0% 0 Sub Total ' -40.37o 55,300 I -13.6% 18,660 Transporlation• • Use Land Use & Transportation Alternatives -8.1% 11,130 -4.0% 5,500 Additional Transportation Strategies I -3.2% 4,450 -1.9% 2,560 Electric Vehicles I -5.7% 7,750 -7.4% 10,100 Sub Total Jj -17.0% 23,330 ' -13.0% 18,160 Other SectorsOffsets Waste + Recycling I -2.5% 3,430 -2.5% 3,480 Wafer + Wastewater I -0.6% 840 -0.2% 330 Purchase Offsets -0.0% 0 -30.1 % 41,310 Sub Total -3.1% 4,270 -32.9% 45,120 Source: City of Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool 2015. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental impact Report 27 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Finding: The City Council finds that: Project Objectives The Carbon Neutral by 2030 Alternative has the ability to substantially support each of the project objectives identified. Implementation of this alternative would prioritize the achievement of a low or no carbon future (Objective 5), while also providing a safe and clean natural environment (Objective 4) and promoting healthy and active lifestyles through land use and transportation investments (Objective 3) by reducing air quality and transportation impacts compared to the proposed project. This alternative would also meet Objective 2, enhance and support a strong, diverse, and vibrant local economy, as many of the land use and transportation policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled do so by providing a greater range of daily services and employment opportunities within closer proximity so that residents may reasonably choose to utilize alternative modes of transportation. Comparison of Environmental Impacts This alternative could pose greater impacts to aesthetics and biological resources due to increased use of renewable energy systems such as solar, wind, or ocean -based renewable energy sources, and greater impacts to cultural resources due to greater alteration or demolition of designated or potentially eligible historic resources to construct high energy performance buildings. While the impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources may be greater than the proposed project, it is unknown whether they would rise to the level of being considered a significant impact, because the specific design and location of additional renewable energy projects cannot be determined at this time. This alternative would also have far reaching environmental benefits for Hermosa Beach by decreasing impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration, and transportation. Air pollutants associated with the burning of fuel for building energy and transportation uses would be reduced. Noise levels would likely be somewhat better as the primary source of noise in Hermosa Beach is automobile use. Reduced automobile use and an increase in electric vehicles, which are quieter than gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, would reduce noise levels. Transportation impacts would also likely be decreased as this alternative would result in a reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles7traveied. Feasibili Alternative 2 is infeasible because this alternative could pose greater environmental impacts compared to the proposed project to aesthetics and visual resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. Additionally, it could be cost prohibitive, with mandates that are overly -burdensome on residents if they are carried out to require upgrades prior to the end of useful life of vehicles, equipment or other building materials. It is also burdensome to limit natural gas from homes, restaurants and hotels. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report Revised August 2017 28 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS C. Alternative 3: Stronger Retention of Visual and Cuitural Resources Alternative: This alternative would focus on implementing additional policies or implementation actions that would facilitate greater retention of visual and cultural resources in Hermosa Beach. While PLAN Hermosa includes several goals and policies to address community character, historic buildings, and scenic views, they largely do so in a manner that encourages rather than mandates the protection of these resources. To facilitate greater retention of the existing visual and cultural resources in Hermosa Beach the steps taken to modify PLAN Hermosa would include: • Reduction in density or establishment of Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for Medium and High Density Residential (reduce capacity to encourage retention of existing buildings that contribute to the character of residential neighborhoods). • Establishment of an overall cap or reduction in development intensity for the Community Commercial and Recreational Commercial land use designations to limit the scale and amount of additional development or increased redevelopment within those areas. • Addition of mixed use designation to allow limited residential development, in conjunction with commercial uses, accommodating the projected population growth reduced through changes to medium and high -density designations. • Development of design standards (as opposed to guidelines) to address the compatibility of building scale, design aesthetics, and community character for residential and commercial neighborhoods. • Addition of historic resource protection policies, including City initiation of historic landmark designation of potentially eligible historic resources. • Achievement as a Certified Local Government (CLG) by the California Office of Historic Preservation, including establishment of an historic preservation commission. • Development of a historic preservation plan, historic context statement, and/or historic preservation element of the General Plan. • Establishment of view protection ordinances and development standards to physically depict building form/massing in the evaluation of a project's impact on views. • Change the issuance of a demolition permit from a ministerial action to a discretionary action for those properties that have been identified as a potentially eligible historic resource. This Character Retention Alternative, with the added or modified policies, would result in greater levels of certainty that cultural and visual resources would be retained, compared to the policies and programs proposed in PLAN Hermosa. However, the policies in this alternative may also discourage the redevelopment, reuse, or renovation of existing buildings and structures which will be necessary to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. Finding: The City Council finds that: Project Obiectives The Character Retention Alternative prioritizes achievement of Objective 1, preserve the city's small beach town character, and Objective 2, to enhance and support a strong, diverse and vibrant local economy through safe and City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa Revised August 2027 Final Environmental Impact Report 29 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS beautiful commercial corridors, but would not conflict or prevent the achievement of the other project objectives. This alternative would provide similar policies and implementation actions to PLAN Hermosa related to the mobility network, transportation enhancements, and resource conservation, meaning it would equally achieve project Objective 3 to promote healthy and active lifestyles and project Objective 4 to provide a safe and clean environment including clean air and water. While this alternative may have a slightly greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions, it would carry forward similar policies to PLAN Hermosa related to reducing emissions from transportation sources, water conservation, and diverting solid waste from landfills to support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions partially consistent with Project Objective 5, to achieve a low or no carbon future. However, reductions in the amount of new development allowed could mean limited opportunities to realize certain sustainability programs. Comparison of Environmental Impacts This Character Retention Alternative would pose greater impacts to greenhouse gas emissions compared to PLAN Hermosa. The challenge of renovating or constructing high energy performance buildings in a manner that does not diminish the significance of a historical resource or cause potentially eligible historic resources to become ineligible due to alterations that are inconsistent with standards for the treatment of historical resources is presented in this alternative. This alternative would also reduce impacts associated with aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, and cultural resources, where both construction related air quality impacts and significance of a historical resource are both considered significant and unavoidable impacts under implementation of PLAN Hermosa. However, it is unknown whether this alternative would lessen these impacts to levels that are considered less than significant. Feasibility The Final EIR included an Alternative focused on Greater Retention of Character (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 is not feasible because it would potentially cause greater impacts to one category, greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the City does not have the staff or expertise to establish a historic preservation commission. Throughout the years, the community has opposed design restrictions (often referred to as art juries) in favor of allowing individual property owners to design as they please within the confines of development standards. To do otherwise would go against a long-standing community policy. The community has also consistently rejected the idea of a private view protection ordinance, because a view protection ordinance favors the views of those who have already built to the height limit over those properties that have not yet built up. Rather, the community values a more fair system, whereby each property can build to a set height limit that applies universally to the entire zone. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental impact Report 30 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative". Based on the alternative analysis, both the Carbon Neutral by 2030 and Character Retention Alternatives would reduce several of the categories listed as Potentially Significant or Significant and Unavoidable under the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would have potentially greater impacts to several categories, including: aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services, and transportation. The Carbon Neutrality by 2030 Alternative would also have potentially greater impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, biological resources, and cultural resources, while the Character Retention Alternative would only cause potentially greater impacts to one category, greenhouse gas emissions. 1.6 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed PLAN Hermosa against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures. The City has also examined alternatives to the proposed project, and has determined that adoption and implementation of the proposed project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action. 1.6.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The proposed project would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impacts after mitigation: 1. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in a manner that could generate air pollutant emissions from short-term construction. Although PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and enforcement of current SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce short-term emissions, construction emissions would result in a significant impact. 2. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated growth in the South Coast Air Basin would increase the amount of air quality emissions occurring within the basin and affect the region's ability to attain ambient air quality standards. This would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. 3. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would provide for future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Although implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and actions would protect historical resources, this would be a potentially significant impact. 4. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated future development in the South Bay Cities COG planning area could cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource. The loss of some historical resources may be prevented through implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and similar policies in other communities. However, this would not ensure that these resources can be protected and preserved. This impact would be cumulatively considerable. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 31 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5. The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard would be significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa -related traffic in both the morning and evening peak periods. 6. The intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard is significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa -related traffic in the morning peak period. 7. The intersection at Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street is significantly impacted by PLAN Hermosa -related traffic in the morning peak period. 8. Through implementation of PLAN Hermosa, the roadway segment on Prospect Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 2nd Street would be degraded from its current operation at an LOS C to an LOS D by 2040. While this is improved from the projected LOS E that would be experienced under the 2040 scenario without PLAN Hermosa, it still represents a significant impact. 9. PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the City in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within the city. Both the City's and Caltrans's existing level of service standards for intersections and roadway segments would be maintained at the majority of intersections and segments analyzed. Nonetheless, three intersections and one segment would experience a cumulatively considerable impact. 1.6.2 PROJECT BENEFITS The City has balanced the proposed project's benefits against its significant and unavoidable impacts. The City finds that the proposed project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts and, therefore, that those impacts are acceptable in light of the proposed project's benefits. The City finds that each of the following benefits is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the proposed project notwithstanding the proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, and transportation. The proposed project would provide several public benefits as described below: 1. Provides a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan, last adopted in 1979, and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan, certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982, to reflect the community's values and vision for the City, provides updated policy directives to guide development in the City over the next 25 years, and addresses topics that have emerged as important priorities since the ast-oladate-including-greenhouse gas -emissions, sea -level -rise, complete stmaets, infrastructure. 2. The proposed PLAN is more focused and user-friendly, comprehensively addresses recent changing conditions in the City, and would implement smart growth principles, concepts of sustainable development and resource management, and environmental protection. 3. Preserves the city's small beach town character through policies and design standards that maintain buildings at an appropriate scale and size with existing ones and recognizes the unique features of the city's eclectic residential neighborhoods. 4. Enhances and supports a strong, diverse, and vibrant local economy through policies that stimulate sustainable businesses and jobs, enhance safe and PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 32 City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PROJECT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS beautiful commercial corridors, articulate clear and consistent standards for new businesses, and provide convenient services to residents, employees, and visitors. 5. Promotes healthy and active lifestyles through land use and transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian, transit, and bike safety and access to a variety of destinations in the city. 6. Provide a safe and clean natural environment - including clean air and water - and stewardship of our ocean resources, open space, and other natural resources. 7. Will help the City achieve a low -carbon future through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by reducing fuel consumption, diverting solid waste from landfills, conserving water and improving the efficiency of energy use and utilizing renewable energy sources, benefitting the local and global environment. 8. The transportation system in the PLAN strategically links land use and transportation to make efficient use of the existing roadway capacity through the promotion of a multi -modal circulation system, including improvements to the pedestrian, transit, and bicycling environment in the City of Hermosa Beach. 9. Through its sustainability policies, the PLAN would help promote energy efficiency, the conservation of water resources, and encourage the reduction of waste through recycling, providing a local, statewide, national and ultimately global benefit. Finding: The proposed project represents a balance between several competing objectives in the City of Hermosa Beach. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, and technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the Planning Commission has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified may be considered acceptable due to the specific considerations listed above which offset the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts that will be caused by implementation of the project. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record it is hereby determined that: • All significant Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration, and Transportation effects on the environment due to approval of the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible; and • Any remaining significant Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Transportation effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above. 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) require the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects on the environment. The monitoring program is hereby adopted for the project. The monitoring program is designed to ensure compliance with required mitigation measures. City of Hermosa Beach Revised August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 33 li RTI 6.} R r` 41 S STOP. IRV !r 3ii- r city of hermosa beach PLANHermosa ......................................................... Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II: Revised Draft EIR SCH# 2015081009 August 2017 �; WALK HERMOSA CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLAN HERMOSA REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2015081009 Prepared for. - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Prepared by: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1 KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 1150 OAKLAND, CA 94612 AUGUST 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0.1 Project Under Review.................................................................................................................. 1.0-1 1.0.2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................... 1.0-1 1.0.3 Alternatives to the Project .................... :............ ............. ........................ :......... :...:.................... 1.0-2 1.0.4 Potential Areas of Controversy ........................................................ .................................. ,.. 1.0-3 1.0.5 Summary Table.............................................................,.......... .................................................. 1.0-3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0.1 Project Background..................................................................................................................... 2.0-1 2.0.2 Legislative Background................................................................................. .......................... 2.0-1 2.0.3 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline and EIR Assumptions.............................2.0-2 2.0.4 Purpose of the Program Environmental Impact Report........................................................ 2.0-4 2.0.5 Public Review of Draft EIR and Lead Agency Contact........................................................ 2.0-6 2.0.6 Scope of This Draft EIR........................ :.:.......... :... :.......................... ...:......;..:.............................. 2.0-6 2.0.7 How to Use This Report................................................................................................................. 2.0-7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0.1 Regional Setting.,..........,............................................................................................................... 3.0-1 3.0.2 Hermosa Beach .............................. ..:.:........................ -.-I ......... .............................................. 3.0-1 3.0.3 Project Objectives........................................................................................................................3.0-5 3.0.4 Project Characteristics............... ............................................................. 3.0-5 3.0.5 Project Approvals....................................................................................................................... 3.0-37 3.0.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies............................................................................ 3.0-38 3.0.7 References.........................................................,...,..,,...............................................................3.0-39 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS 4.0.1 Baseline Existing Conditions Assumed in the Analysis............................................................ 4.0-1 4.0.2 Document Structure..................................................................................................................... 4.0-1 4.0.3 Format of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................... 4.0-2 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 4.1-1 4.1.2 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................................4.1-1 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ........ ........... .:........... ................... ..........:........................................................... 4.1-9 4.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................4.1-10 4.1.5 References.................................................................... .......................................................4.1-24 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2.1 Introduction ................ ................ ........... ........................................................... .................. I ....... ,...4.2-1 4.2.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................:.-............4.2-1 4.2.3 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................................... 4.2-2 City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report I TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................. 4.2-3 4.2.5 References...................................................................................................................................4.2-24 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.2 Environmental Setting ....................................... , ........................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.3 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................................... 4.3-10 4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................................... 4.3-1 1 4.3.5 References...................................................................................:...:..::..:....................................4.3-19 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................. 4.4-2 4.4.3 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................................... 4.4-10 4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................................... 4.4-12 4.4.5 References...................................................................................................................................4.4-24 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................. 4.5-1 4.5.3 Regulatory Setting..................................................................................................................... 4.5-7 4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................. 4.5-8 4.5.5 References...................................................................................................................................4.5-14 4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.6.1 Introduction.........................................................---.................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................. 4.6-1 4.6.3 Regulatory Setting......................................................................................................................... 4.6-6 4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................... .......................................................... 4.6-9 4.6.5 References............................................................................................................................4.6-31 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................. 4.7-1 4.7.3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................. 4.7-2 4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................. 4.7-4 4.7.5 References...................................................................................................................................4.7-11 4.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.8.1 Introduction ............................. , .,............................................................................................ 4.8-1 4.8.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................. 4.8-1 PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................ .............. ..................................................... :..:......... 4.8-8 4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................ ............................................................ 4.8-14 4.8.5 References .................................. ............. ......... ................................. ................................. --- 4.8-33 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.9.1 Introduction ............................................. .................... I ......... .............. 4.9-1 4.9.2 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................................4.9-1 4.9.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................................................ 4.9-4 4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................. 4.9-5 4.9.5 References .......................... ....................................................................................... ........ .......4.9-26 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 Introduction ............................................ ............................................................................. 4.10-1 4.10.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.3 Regulatory Setting.... -- . ....... .................................................................................. 4.10-1 4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................................... 4.10-3 4.10.5 References...................................................................................................................................4.10-4 4.11 NOISE AND VIBRATION 4.1 1 .1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................4.1 1-1 4.11 .2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4.1 1-1 4.11.3 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................4.11-10 4.1 1 .4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................4.1 1-1 1 4.11.5 References., ...................... .. . ..... .............................................................................................. 4.11-26 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.12.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 4.12-1 4.12.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................4.12-1 4.12.3 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................................... 4.12-4 4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................................................... 4.12-5 4.12.5 References.................................................................................................................................4.12-10 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND UTILITIES 4.13.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 4.13-1 4.13.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services............................................................... 4.13-4 4.13.3 Law Enforcement Services. ............................................ .. ..... .... ................ w ............. ...' .............. 4.13-9 4.13.4 Public Schools............................................................................................................................ 4.13-13 4.13.5 Parks and Recreation..............................................................................................................4.13-18 4.13.6 Library Facilities......................................................................................................................... 4.13-27 4.13.7 Water Supply and Service; Wastewater Service; Storm Drainage ................................. 4.13-29 4.13.8 Solid Waste ...................................... ........................................... ................................................ 4.13-43 City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.13.9 Energy........................................................ 4.13.10 References ................................................ 4.14 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................... 4.13-49 ...................................................... 4.13-62 4.14.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 4.14-1 4.14.2 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................................4.14-1 4.14.3 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................4.14-18 4.14.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................... .............................................................. 4.14-27 4.14.5 References............ . ........................... ............................. .......... ................... ............................... 4.14-46 5.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS 5.0.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5.0-1 5.0.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts....................................................... 5.0.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ................................... ........................... ............ 5.0-2 5.0.4 Growth -Inducing Impacts ........................................ ................................................................ — 5.0-3 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.0.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 6.0-1 6.0.2 Alternatives Evaluated................................................................................................................ 6.0-2 6.0.3 Impacts of Each Alternative..................................................................................................... 6.0-10 6.0.4 Summary of Impacts of Each Alternative Compared to PLAN Hermosa ........................ 6.0-24 6.0.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative...................................................................................... 6.0-31 6.0.6 References .......................................... ......................................................................................... 6.0-32 7.0 REPORT PREPARERS APPENDICES Appendix A: PLAN Hermosa Public Review Draft December 2015 Appendix B: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters B-1. Notice of Preparation B-2. Comment Letters Appendix C: Technical Background Report C-1. Introduction C-2. Aesthetics C-3. Agricultural Resources C-4. Air Quality C-5. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation C-6. Biological Resources C-7. Cultural Resources C-8. Energy C-9. Geology and Soils C-10. Hazards and Hazardous Material PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report IV City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS C-1 1. Hydrology and Water Quality C-12. Land Use and Planning C-13. Mineral Resources C-14. Population and Housing C-15. Noise C-16. Public Services and Utilities, and Recreation C-17. Transportation C-18. References Appendix Al Hermosa Beach Market Analysis Appendix A2 Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise Appendix B1 Natural Resources Appendix B2 Special Status Species Appendix B6 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix B7 City of Hermosa Beach 2013-2021 Housing Element Appendix D: Air Quality Assessment Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Assessment E-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Assumptions E-2. City of Hermosa Beach GHG Inventory, Forecast, and Target Setting Report E-3. Hermosa Beach Carbon Planning Tool and User Guide Appendix F: Noise Assessment F-1. Noise Measurements F-2. Traffic Model Appendix G: Transportation Assessment G-1. Lane Configurations G-2. Traffic Counts G-3. Peak Hour Turning Movement Traffic Volumes G-4. LOS Worksheets G-5. Traffic Methodology G-6. VMT Reduction Methods and TDM+ Tool Outputs Appendix H: Tribal Consultation LIST OF TABLES Table 1.0-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................... 1.0-4 Table 2.0-1 Summary of NOP Comments,.............................................................. :......................... 2.0-2 Table 3.0-1 Hermosa Beach Existing Land Uses............................................................................... 3.0-5 Table 3.0-2 PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations......................................................................... 3.0-8 Table 3.0-3 PLAN Hermosa Residential Development Projections ............................................. 3.0-10 Table 3.0-4 PLAN Hermosa Nonresidential Development Projections ...................................... 3.0-10 Table 3.0-5 Character Areas and Future Visions........................................................................... 3.0-12 Table 3.0-6 Proposed Transportation Network Descriptions........................................................ 3.0-16 Table 3.0-7 Implementation Actions with Direct Physical Changes .......................................... 3.0-26 Table 3.0-8 Implementation Actions Used in this EIR..................................................................... 3.0-28 City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report v TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.0-9 Actions Related to the Coastal Implementation Plan ............................................ 3.0-39 Table 4.2-1 Mass Daily Thresholds....................................................................................................... 4.2-4 Table 4.2-2 Summary of Modeled Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors.........................,............................................................................................... 4.2-16 Table 4.3-1 Acreages of Vegetative Communities within the Coastal and Inland Zones...... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Special -Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur Within and Surrounding the PlanningArea.................................................................................................................... 4.3-6 Table 4.3-3 Special -Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Within and Surrounding the PlanningArea.................................................................................................................... 4.3-8 Table 4.5-1 Effects of Richter Magnitude and Modified Mercalli Intensity ................................. 4.5-2 Table 4.6-1 Potential Statewide Impacts from Climate Change ................................................. 4.6-2 Table 4.6-2 Hermosa Beach Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012.. 4.6-6 Table 4.6-3 Hermosa Beach Baseline (2005), Forecast (2040) Emissions, and Target Level (2040)................................................................................................................................ 4.6-19 Table 4.6-4 California Policies Reducing Emissions Locally.......................................................... 4.6-19 Table 4.6-5 Comparison of BAU and Adjusted BAU Emissions (2040)........................................ 4.6-20 Table 4.6-6 Summary of Annual Emissions Reductions by Sector in 2040................................. 4.6-23 Table 4.6-7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals and Achievements........,.. . ............... :............. 4.6-29 Table 4.9-1 Hermosa Beach General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................. 4.9-2 Table 4.9-2 ............................................,. Hermosa Beach Existing Land Uses ......................... ........ 4.9-3 Table 4.9-3 Comparison of Land Use Densities and Floor Area Ratios ...................................... 4.9-1 1 Table 4.9-4 Coastal Act Consistency............................................................................................... 4.9-13 Table 4.9-5 Compatibility of PLAN Hermosa with the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS ............................... 4.9-21 Table 4.1 1-1 Summary of Noise Measurement Results................................................................... 4.1 1-4 Table 4.1 1-2 Comparison of Noise Measurement Results with City's Policies ............................4.1 1-5 Table 4.1 1-3 Distance to Existing Unmitigated CNEL Contour Lines ............................................ 4.1 1-6 Table 4.1 1-4 Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent VibrationLevels ........... .................................................................................................. 4.11-10 Table 4-11-5 Hermosa Beach ,Maximum Ambient Noise Levels................................................. 4.1 1-10 Table 4.1 1-6 Interior and Exterior Noise Standards [Table 6.3 in PLAN Hermosa] .................... 4.1 1-14 Table 4.11-7 Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix [Table 6.4 in PLAN Hermosa]....................4.1 1-14 Table 4.1 1-8 Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors .....4.1 1-17 Table 4.11-9 Future Noise Impact Zones Adjacent to Roadwc s__ ,__........... ............. ._4._LL-l8 Table 4.1 1-10 Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..............................4.1 1-20 Table 4.1 1-1 1 Estimated Changes in Traffic Noise Levels Compared to Existing Conditions.. 4.11-22 Table 4.1 1-12 Estimated Changes in Traffic Noise Levels Compared to Future Without Project Conditions...................................................................................................................... 4.1 1-23 Table 4.12-1 Existing Population and Housing Conditions............................................................. 4.12-1 Table 4.12-2 Hermosa Beach Resident Employment by Industry, 2011 ...................................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-3 Jobs by Industry, 2002-201 1.......................................................................................... 4.12-3 Table 4.12-4 Percentage of Jobs by Sector, 2007-2013................................................................ 4.12-3 Table 4.12-5 SCAG 2016 Draft RTP Forecasts for 2040.................................................................... 4.12-4 Table 4.12-6 PLAN Hermosa Residential Development Capacity ............................................... 4.12-7 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report vi City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 4.12-7 PLAN Hermosa Nonresidential Development Capacity ......................................... 4.12-7 Table 4.12-8 PLAN Hermosa Forecast for 2040................................................................................. 4.12-7 Table 4.13-1 Hermosa Beach City School District Enrollment, 2014-2015................................. 4.13-13 Table 4.13-2 Parks and Community Facilities in Hermosa Beach ................................. .............. 4.13-19 Table 4.13-3 Hermosa -Redondo District Supply and Demand, 2010 through 2040 (Acre -Feet Per year)................................................................................................................................ 4.13-30 Table 4.13-4 Energy Use by Sector and Fuel Type - 2015............................................................. 4.13-50 Table 4.13-5 Historic Energy Consumption......................................................................................4.13-59 Table 4.13-6 Energy Consumption Associated with the Future Development Potential under PlanHermosa................................................................................................................4.13-60 Table 4.13-7 Fuel Consumption Associated with the Future Development Potential under Plan Hermosa......................................................................................................................... 4.13-61 Table 4.13-8 Plan Hermosa Energy Consumption Plus Cumulative Conditions ....................... 4.13-62 Table 4.14-1 Hermosa Beach Roadway Functional Classifications.............................................4.14-2 Table 4.14-2 Hermosa Beach Roadways.......................................................................................... 4.14-4 Table 4.14-3 Beach Cities Transit Routes........................................................................................... 4.14-4 Table 4.14-4 Los Angeles County Metro Transit Services................................................................ 4.14-6 Table 4.14-5 Los Angeles Department of Transportation Transit Services ................................... 4.14-6 Table 4.14-6 Hermosa Beach Bicycle Facilities ................................................... :............................ 4.14-7 Table 4.14-7 Level of Service Definitions........................................................................................... 4.14-9 Table 4.14-8 Study Intersections.......................................................................................................... 4,14-9 Table 4.14-9 Study Roadway Segments........ Table 4.14-10 Level of Service Thresholds ....... ... ....... ......................... ,......................................... 4.14-1 1 ............................................................................. 4.14-13 Table 4.14-1 1 Existing (2015) Intersection Level of Service: City of Hermosa Beach ................ 4.14-14 Table 4.14-12 Existing (2015) Intersection Level of Service: Caltrans........................................... 4.14-16 Table 4.14-13 Existing (2015) Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................... 4.14-17 Table 4.14-14 Planned Hermosa Beach Bicycle Facilities..............................................................4.14-30 Table 4.14-15 Daily Citywide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Trips (VT) Generated................................................................................................................... 4.14-32 Table 4.14-16 Hermosa Beach Signalized Intersection Impact Criteria ................:..................... 4.14-33 Table 4.14-17 Hermosa Beach Unsignalized Intersection Impact Criteria .................................. 4.14-33 Table 4.14-18 Hermosa Beach Roadway Segment Impact Criteria ........................................... 4.14-33 Table 4.14-19 Caltrans Signalized Intersection Impact Criteria....................................................4.14-34 Table 4.14-20 Congestion Management Program Impact Criteria............................................4.14-34 Table 4.14-21 Future (2040) Intersection Level of Service: City of Hermosa Beach .................. 4.14-35 Table 4.14-22 Future (2040) Intersection Level of Service: Caltrans............................................. 4.14-37 Table 4.14-23 Future (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service ................................................ 4.14-38 Table 6.0-1 Potentially Significant Adverse Effects of PLAN Hermosa ......................................... 6.0-2 Table 6.0-2 Comparison of Allowed/Estimated Density and Intensity ........................................ 6.0-8 Table 6.0-3 No Project/Existing General Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and VehicleTrips Generated.................................................................................................. 6.0-9 Table 6.0-4 Comparison of Emissions Reduction Scenarios 2030 vs. 2040................................ 6.0-10 Table 6.0-5 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to PLAN Hermosa .......... 6.0-27 City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.0-1 Regional Location Map................................................................................................. 3.0-1 Figure 3.0-2 Hermosa Beach Corporate Boundary ........................................................................ 3.0-3 Figure 3.0-3 Hermosa Beach Existing Land Uses.....................................,....................................... 3.0-4 Figure 3.0-4 PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations Diagram ...................................................... 3.0-9 Figure 3.0-5 Character Areas........................................................................................................... 3.0-13 Figure 3.0-6 Proposed Street Classifications.................................................................................. 3.0-17 Figure 3.0-7 Proposed Pedestrian Network............,....................................................................... 3.0-18 Figure 3.0-8 Proposed Bicycle and Multi -Use Network...................................,.............................3.0-19 Figure 3.0-9 Proposed Transportation Amenities..................................................:........................ 3.0-20 Figure 3.0-10 Proposed Safe Routes to School Network....................:...:...................................... 3.0-21 Figure 3.0-1 1 Parks and Public Facilities ................................... :................. ...:................................. 3.0-24 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................. 4.3-4 Figure 4.3-2 Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special -Status Species ............................... 4.3-5 Figure4.5-1 Regional Faults................................................................................................................ 4.5-4 Figure 4.5-2 Landslide and Liquefaction Zones.....................................................................:......... 4.5-6 Figure 4.6-1 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 2014............................................ 4.6-4 Figure 4.6-2 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2000-2014.................................................... 4.6-5 Figure 4.6-3 Emissions Reductions Needed to Meet State and Local Targets ........................ 4.6-21 Figure 4.8-1 Stormwater Drainage Map........................................................................................... 4.8-5 Figure 4.8-2 FEMA Flood Zone Map..................................,,.....,............:............................................ 4.8-6 Figure 4.8-3 Tsunami Inundation Zone................................................................... .................. 4.8-7 Figure 4.9-1 PLAN Hermosa Proposed Changes to Land Use Designations ............................ 4.9-10 Figure 4.11-1 Existing Noise Contours in Hermosa Beach..............................................................4.1 1-7 Figure 4.1 1-2 Future (2040) Noise Contours with Implementation of PLAN Hermosa ............4.1 1-19 Figure 4.13-1 Parks and Public Facilities.......................................................................................... 4.13-20 Figure 4.14-1 Hermosa Beach Street Classification........................................................................ 4.14-3 Figure 4.14-2 Existing Transit Network................................................................................................. 4.14-5 Figure 4.14-3 Existing Bicycle Network...........,................................................................................... 4.14-8 Figure 4.14-4 Study Intersections .............................. ............................................ ............................ 4.14-11 Figure 4.14-5 Study Roadway Segments............................................................................4.14-12 Figure 4.14-6 Existing {2015) Intersection Level of Service........................................................... 4.14-15 Figure 4.14-7 Existing (2015) Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................. 4.14-18 Figure 4.14-8 PLAN Hermosa (2040) Intersection Level of Service ............................................. 4.14-36 Figure 4.14-9 PLAN Hermosa (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................... 4.14-41 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report viii City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT average daily traffic afy acre-feet per year AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAU business as usual CAAQS California ambient air quality standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Occupational Safety and Health CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation Cal Water California Water Service Company CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CHa methane CHR California Historical Resource CIP Capital Improvement Program CLUP Coastal Land Use Plan CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide COG Council of Governments COz carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A -weighted decibel DOC California Department of Conservation City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DOF California Department of Finance DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DU/AC dwelling units per acre EIR environmental impact report EMS emergency medical services EO Executive Order EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area EWMP Enhanced Watershed Management Program FAR floor area ratio FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gas GW h gigawatt-hour HBCSD Hermosa Beach City School District HBFD Hermosa Beach Fire Department HBPD Hermosa Beach Police Department HCM Highway Capacity Manual HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant kV kilovolt kWh kilowatt-hour LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County LADOT Los Angeles Department of Transportation -L-ARA -Los Angeles Ibs/day pounds per day LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LCP Local Coastal Program LID low impact development LOS level of service LST localized significance threshold LUST leaking underground storage tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBUSD Manhattan Beach Unified School District PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS MCL maximum contaminant level MEP maximum extent practicable Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority mgd million gallons per day MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents MRZ mineral resource zone MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents MW megawatt MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MW h megawatt -hour NAAQS national ambient air quality standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHMLAC Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOP Notice of Preparation NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System N20 nitrous oxide OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCH Pacific Coast Highway PM particulate matter ppm parts per million PRC Public Resources Code PV photovoltaic RBUSD Redondo Beach Unified School District RCC Regional Call Center RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation ROG reactive organic gas RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SBBMP South Bay Bicycle Master Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS SCH State Clearinghouse SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SMBRP Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project SMGB State Mining and Geology Board SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company S02 sulfur dioxide SR State Route SSMP sewer system management plan STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWMP stormwater management plan SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant T-BACT Toxic Best Available Control Technology TBR Technical Background Report TDM transportation demand management TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDOT US Department of Transportation USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Services USGS US Geological Survey UWMP urban water management plan V/C volume -to -capacity [ratio] VMT vehicle miles traveled VTD vehicle trips per day WBMWD West Basin Municipal Water District WDR waste discharge requirement WMG Watershed Management Group PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report xii City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0.1 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) considers the environmental impacts likely to occur with adoption and implementation of the City of Hermosa Beach's General Plan and Local Coastal Program (PLAN Hermosa). Together, these planning documents constitute the proposed project. This EIR is designed to inform decision -makers in Hermosa Beach, other responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of approval and implementation of the proposed project. A detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. The City of Hermosa Beach (City) is the lead agency for environmental review of the proposed project. PLAN Hermosa defines long-term community goals, decision -making policies, and implementation actions. The plan establishes several land use designations that include residential, commercial, creative, institutional, and public facilities uses. PLAN Hermosa establishes policies to accommodate a total of 10,409 dwelling units and 2,736,800 square feet of nonresidential uses in 2040. The environmental impact analysis in this Draft EIR is defined primarily by the change between existing conditions and those associated with future land uses proposed in PLAN Hermosa. To ensure maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas, the Coastal Act directs each local government in the Coastal Zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) consistent with Section 30501 of the California Coastal Act, in consultation with the Coastal Commission and with public participation. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2003 General Plan Guidelines suggest integration of the general plan and local coastal program into a "coherent and internally consistent local general plan." As such, the City has decided to update both the General Plan and the LCP together as an integrated document. The General Plan and LCP update addresses land use; mobility; parks, recreation, and open space; coastal access; coastal hazards; water quality; air quality and climate change; noise; and other issues that are important to the community. In order to achieve certification from the Coastal Commission and receive local control over the issuance of Coastal Development Permits, Hermosa Beach must update the Coastal Land Use Plan and prepare and adopt a Local Implementation Program that collectively consider and address emerging coastal issues such as beach management, parking, water quality, sea level rise, and climate change. 1.0.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES As shown in Table 1.0-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures), a number of project impacts identified in the EIR were found to be less than significant, requiring no mitigation measures. These impacts are found in the following sections: Aesthetics and Visual Resources; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population, Housing, and Employment; Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities; and Transportation. In addition, it was determined that numerous other identified impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures described in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions in the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would result in significant impacts on some of these resources, City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0-1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY which are analyzed in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this document and summarized in Table 1.0-1 (provided at the end of this chapter). SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Air Quality Impact 4.2-2 Short -Term Construction Emissions. PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that would generate air pollutant emissions from short- term construction. Impact 4.2-7 Cumulative Construction and Operational Emissions. PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated growth in the South Coast Air Basin would increase the amount of construction - related air pollutant emissions occurring within the basin, thereby affecting the region's ability to attain ambient air quality standards. Cultural Resources Impact 4.4-4 Substantial Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource. PLAN Hermosa would provide for future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Impact 4.4-8 Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources. PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated future development in the South Bay Cities COG planning area could cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource. Transportation Impact 4.14-1 Exceedance of LOS Performance Standards. PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within Hermosa Beach. Both the City's and Caltrans's existing level of service standards for intersections and roadway segments would be maintained at the majority of intersections and segments analyzed, except at three intersections and on one roadway segment. Impact 4.14-7 Cumulative Contribution to Exceedance of LOS Performance Standards. PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within Hermosa Beach. Both the City's and Caltrans's existing level of service standards for intersections and roadway segments would be maintained at the majority of intersections and segments analyzed, with the exception of three intersections and one roadway segment. 1.03 A-LTERNATIVES-M—THI-PROJI=CT Chapter 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, contains a full description and analysis of three alternatives to the proposed project that were analyzed in the Draft EIR. The alternatives are: • Alternative 1 - Retain Existing General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (No Project Alternative): This alternative assumes that PLAN Hermosa is not implemented and that future development in the city would proceed as indicated in the existing General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. • Alternative 2 - Achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2030: This alternative focused on achieving a community -wide goal of carbon neutrality by 2030. Carbon neutrality is the state of achieving net zero carbon emissions, generally by balancing a measured amount of PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 1.0-2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset by the community. There are two primary differences between this alternative and the 2015 draft of PLAN Hermosa, which previously included a goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than the year 2040: 1) Expediting achievement of a carbon neutral goal by 10 years from 2040 to 2030. 2) Bypassing the use of carbon credits to offset carbon emissions that could not be eliminated. Alternative 3 - Stronger Retention of Visual and Cultural Resources: This alternative focused on implementing additional policies or implementation actions that would facilitate greater retention of visual and cultural resources in Hermosa Beach. While the 2015 draft of PLAN Hermosa included several goals and policies to address community character, historic buildings, and scenic views, they largely do so in a manner that encourages rather than mandates the protection of these resources. This alternative, with the added or modified policies, would result in greater levels of certainty that cultural and visual resources would be retained, compared to the policies and programs proposed in PLAN Hermosa. 1.0.4 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY This EIR is a comprehensive document that evaluates each environmental topic that could be applicable to PLAN Hermosa. The environmental topics covered, as potential areas of controversy, include impacts on public services, potential air quality effects, and sea level rise. The City published and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) from August 7, 2015, through September 8, 2015, which was distributed to local, regional, and state agencies and posted on the City's website at http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=767. The NOP and written comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix B. 1.0.5 SUMMARY TABLE Information in Table 1.0-1 has been organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapter 4.0. The table is arranged in four columns: • Environmental Impacts • Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation • Mitigation Measure (s) • Level of Significance After Mitigation If an impact is determined to be significant or potentially significant after implementation of proposed PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions, mitigation measures are identified, where appropriate and feasible. More than one mitigation measure may be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. This EIR assumes that all applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be implemented, including but not necessarily limited to proposed PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions, as well as the laws and requirements or recommendations of the City of Hermosa Beach. Applicable plans, policies, and regulations are identified and described in the Regulatory Setting subsection of each resource section and in the relevant impact analysis. Further description of both the existing environmental setting and the existing regulatory setting in 2015 can be found in the Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for PLAN Hermosa, which is provided as Appendix C to the EIR. A description of the organization of the environmental analysis, as well as key foundational assumptions regarding the approach to the analysis, is included in Chapter 4.0, Introduction to the Analysis. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific resource sections in Chapter 4.0. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0-3 W H Q W L z IO F Q r q E 62 a N W P D u W W A w e o a a a a z z z z jQ •vl � d 7 m w C O R m OI 2 7 7 7 7 L_ O c c c C OC z Z Z Z m L O N ` C a o w O C p1 m in to v u C41 O w N Q a IA V1 >, a 7 ° a +�+ 2 u a) a A ++ 3 2 a C N a X z> Q +� + � _ •C tCM . c E a -— Y S +�+ a 4. 3 C u+ as ` O Vl v° •� IA u v L N X u o Q_ v `- Z g a s o� w °s os' C > m v; •� 1^ 'c E co c L a Q a`� , Q `6 ?� O *' c c ° O .. a = >, a .- >, Z > t TO o c o a>i * > vi (u m, J c O m° OV> O 7 r L> t o ,o m a ,au u c _ CJ� R7 IOCDn a > 0 •a o C N c a O N E c" , 2 N E +J iu O c o 0- o s n a �, a E v o 0 0 r> o m 3 a — OL _ C v a a - Cj O o nco E a +Mas >-0 u a) o w a-o a c a a 0 0 m E a; v cu p c a m o a� r= H o a i m w ce w Y t o rn ra > m o c +-' '� u 3 m u u c r a lJ a m rn L m •E n H 0 -0 o a, v� a�i .5 0 '= O v aci O v c• i a a 0 v� d w v 0' C 3+. w 7 a>i — ro u Q 7 W 2 d Q +�+ > W = O +�+ �vif �. •> "° 0 3 •u Z "a .� ro f0 a E Z _: i; t 0 14 ce Q tA W H V W X W O rl N 7 CN L c 0 m a z `1 0 c c c Z Z Z O w a o O d m V V) u c O� v V. J J .pi w c O 4+ H r V R a E c c d E c 0 c W N N > V > 7 O -0 _ au, m 3 N Q- Q N C v N c � E E E m � ;c_ a E = C O C Z CM Y >� 0 Y Y Q �C N S J 4JV of fp C a' a 'p O — W a m o u o m r6 mw O) E v O a, O O N z Y O ++ C E Q C v+ �, O n. E v J C C w > Q O o a c E-, °; -a°, °Y, o -0 7 CU N = R N 0 3 o u t v ZC3)$ )aQ) v 0 O v E o o m-o E Cd .Y _ v 0 � 4J U R � � Y — 0) L 0 Y L 4. m .E c m � m .3 d y _ U1 c m(O +� LA > E 7 .c n O OOC > > v c u c O d :3 •�. a, a, E v — c W O dCL R R T C N U N al�O fp > V Q o L fD rn o > Q) Q- E > o �o m +-. V •C fp U Q a+ 0 !6 al vRi L •E E m u o f - •a Q) 0 L E V O Y O m v 2 m C N f6 L d U to Y w O t O 7 O C *' '� O) O c g •E �' 3 C N .p af3 E C N U Y d c a .� O Cd v O E c a — d al d > M R O ' a E a, a o0 E v E C N -o O C V a Y Y Q '++ Q IA N a v� •- v a ro 0 U a0Y3' U 3 u , ++ m u o +' C N ro E c a E a c °1 o a o 0.a5 u4= 0 Ev.E V D V) — ++ Y O u v n - Fo 'a o o -0 - 0 UJ M m O c c —= c - u -MN CC O .c Q t aj v= u E w C M U C C N c U U L Z3 O_ O a)c o -0 v io io O 3 7 'N oC aY ` Y.> O �Y o a � o - v 0 c .m E 7 C C E 'O > 3 C N o o U M N .r N M L _7 m U> N Q N Ou C O � O E U � V � a o u C w C O +s+ O O Q u N C v EY z :3 N E c CL a u 0 - = v a o > O c-010 Cl :) c (D u75 O 0 o v v 3 v .� '^ a) L c Y Q a O au O E '} [2 W N N o C t w-0 .'^ U o c 01 u m o W E C 0 Ou o m 0 u u c 3 Y �.Y° O R E u o a, o '- aa), c orn E E c � -CO:T v >, ~ N = R Z E a1 .0 ' D 0 `0 E :v Q Q 0 of a .� - o 5 a- E o v a N N a .: u m Ln O r-i 0 ri o w c O m d Q J C Ch CC_ L H v c -0c CD m o -i — O - c N 0)> c c > v t _� N � ta >, c m o I wo ma aE vv� u� o � Qau c O Q �C oO O0 O N E ' ON U> C1 O Cl A L N 01C s X a t d clin +° O c� O v 'J a cu c C m° c O" v- ,P 0 cu u M c, EV O ,,, .�fO t0 7 U c 3 ,+��+ O c O v 0 o m Z) >> 12 a0i a�i c c� � a) Ln - - fD + -c N C y� (D a v _ .> m - i I2 � - .L -0 -° N c N N 4J Y s vi '3 Ol c °' .O L ,.., C a, 0 t ° ro a v ° E � _ °J > O ° Q — t o O t o a, v }, Q> U :.p o ro V +� c o v 0 o a - O E u v c rn= c " a c o O E E° ro V) o, 2 a a of ,� - rEo —° — o> ro o g E> m u U E° o � °' cc ro O •_ ai > \ co O > V +� t � °u rn >, o o -I c E Q N n _ O +� Y E •• c a .= c U to r I O ,� E c v C_ v� U a a� v� a 7 u c c= j N N O rV �- a a N 7 L °u fp M N 3 0 °u N � N a N U00 7 rp H Q Q Q u a) Fes- _0 • o .__ E N o _0 a E °u Q E °u O a` o ++ y C 01 m u � � w p' 4.. v1 VI u m- a E m C d E C C W N O 14 a H W P u W W C O u a`, R Q Q Q Q J C G {A oo a� M = N O ° Y C EY C E `OdCI- au, u _0 o-C: c fO Z s °u a 3 �_ ° ° O .�. y +' u +J -0 O= N u V 0 _ In � ++ OA v1 f0 t Q O v Y Y N o o 2 o E �.s �2i _a OQ Q fa V LAN d� Y c =2.- E O1 v_ Q+ a, Ln M O i' `L' ° C C a ate+ a�_�=a,-0Q U < �.oEovo� a v N O I N N u ro c •��7 '7 6 N° V nl 0 ° a`6i v o- m uc � O c c c CC L •� V, a, Z Z Z Z O IL o o v o —y c O� V Vn v, v, v, C O Z m C n N Q O -5 u O o = E E o 0 Y E o u s a, 3 i+ c 3 E ° a, v m 0 a, rn = ,: OQ Q , o a, Ec c °ca 0) .E 0o= coe Q a E °p O a `c a O w -Q i aui 3 •VI EEm = U O M ° Z° voumgo'°, d1 N Y o vi +. Ln v c Q Q Y C .. Q v E `-' 'aj � a °� a Y 9 v a,CL t a, a, cu o v I'n In Y Q a, ° a E u o a, M N O c a, O Q - '+' 'a u Z Q a, +° E_ E 3 , u Q Q �, - rn tea, c a, E U+ c c '5 v C 3 p C ,� 2 Y 01 E E to Y O N a, E Y -u 0 o O m a, z v o Q T a v v 3 c d a a-c `E Y ° L ° a, = w a u u Q 0-o 0 E a, E>= 'u a1 �' ° a, N N w> Y C c N C y v1 O) t IA 3 a Y o Y v c '�, c Q .. v O v 3 u Y �, o `° a, C �. v E 0 u a, o Q> u E u v a= t = Y {n Y �+ v to W `= Io o E o=_� c� Y o= a c a u t 'S c v= aY' a 3 v rn E o ° 3 x o v �' W u rnm ro 3 0 w 0 N N N N a E 0 Z C% Is o0i m CQ L N W F D u W W 0 rI o M � « D u ar m Vi V) Q ++ J C V iA O N c N L N Y � O t _ m N O a� -0Il m O=01 0 Cc: 0 u aTi °= Oa Q o °' u-0 Om Y03Y '- o oa o 0 0-0) O > a O O O T O N N v L m C v 0 Q 3 cu ami E v L.La m v T) La N Y= m c — ro c "> V p p> a v _ - a - v 3 w Ln u0i _ a� O v, O v v V� .f, O� c Q m *' 0 W ++ L> N O u O L w c v7i In N UJ •0) V) C m ° O. a V f ' C 3 Vf 0 c 3 3 c' n 'N N >�°- E t O o p m c >> u �+ N Y -O r+ m E N O ,n O 0 t u-0 0 LL +' •�' a N C c o O l O Q +� t c T` O n m C N c ' fu o Z, 'o ° c 3 ° Y �' :3 o of c- .0 s 0" Z° v v a - c T= m +J 3 Q a� a v m c 3 a� m H *' N � ` Oc m M c = Oc ° v v u rn Y n v m T +, m n E v_ Y. c v O V O N M u c v+ E —_ •`� io 3 O C m E 0 u N 'CCU p c O u O- m 0 0- 3 N O m to _0 a N c 0 Nm ro C a O w O v two V W V a m a+ V O V cc J � C G c O m 01 *1 M IA z C o of a O �o v 3 U M Y c c N J m N v a 'u C Y m O N 6 y 'Y ° +�+ N w E m X O c a� o v m L m Y m +r u ( O T 0 v v O O c y c 'o m z .O CU Y a� a O m aU +,w c 0= a m E m m £ 0) m a IVO - a ` z U Q) E o JLA N -O ,'� °' Y m is v a 0 o m .. O Y u 0 .0 Q r a; 3 m a •� N +�+ u to Y L m m V c y m> c v E c � c •� N E ' Y V o cCU O = o' c ++ m E LA E O' o o c E —aa) c° C W O 0 °O ` 3 m -c u c > p a N O >, u 0 3 .c Q m n u '�o CL O_ Ln O_ 3 : m O m v d c m 0 O a Y L p m M m - c ° N Y Y VI N° '+, c CL f0 Q O Y v w u c m v c v +� rn EV E v a 2 a� � rn E o 3 u= u w� n rl N M V c a Ln a O a t� ti 00 6J O rl G 2 r u m a E rr am+ c as IE O � v p O a Z a� Z o = � Z C � c O 4 Q > cu a1 Y C = f6 0 3 0 .� c Y Q 0 v+ c v C 0 '-P C __ — c v= u d 3 E U ,; a) ° �, C a c v IA O u.v� a, a) c U O E O W> S7 h � W_ O W UO N�a O c>O ips v p 4 O �a O •c v rn0 a, c a, v E t O a Z) O_ > of a>i ° 3 N " — 3 u (u >. a� 3 is U c a v m 'u — C Z ,c Y v a, -0 3 0 o — 0 _ N 0 a, 3 Y 0` Qj GC 6i 3 0 Y O .3 a of m 0_ v_, w> E m n N - t M— Y u v 4- Q of _o O 0 Ou N v ro a as 0 a o v .� Y 0 0 3 0 o c .� Z v o v 3 c �' o o a, E o o a v _0 L u �= d n •r Y u U-0 O u aj E E ou w•- O E m m= E a; v aci w m O 0 w O t +, v� 'O s n *' u u 6- Ln Z a1 Nin _0 a, YaJ aJ i aJ (u N v B �' Y> o 0) aL6i a) c Yi •� N ra a1 3» v > �o N> O v O N '+� E u o 2 c v 0 0 c O c o v`�i O .� .E a io aci rua Q a E Z Z 0 N a., C � c c V Z in J "n j � a a v � 0 aJ c o a u a U u V m a>�0 0 '' n = N U U Y v v O N O Z(u O .� + m �. m O n- O_ ' ;m ay Y C E N (u m p O C Y c � _ N m ' Q l� E C Z v. G C E >, E o s Z y a y a '>, _ 3 Z) Ln O ;° a u Z 0 3 0 m C .0 C J w o v pf v a r v E 0c as aci o v O -a ' O �; -0 o O t O m ° ° 7 aY' C rO 7 ' n to u c a> O ;° •° v v CO E cow c,=. c r, C O E O'a— c v 0 u m E E •E c w z c a.0 v a 6 3 d °_0 m E o o N o-0 +. 0 E a+ u N 0 v cu co c O ++ Ol u C L E � N .. 2 3 'v 3 2 `oi 'rn o O 3 M M II l_1 � � 2 .i U Q rn O r4 ce a H W F V W W o `0 e ° ° d' a Q a a c C aR z z z z H 2 h w 7 m a! c 0 ,w m Cd1 L v � v 0 N a) a) a) O O O 0 Z Z Z 7 O 0 o 0 ap a` O*' u c p� in in U � to J J J J o v in m m > c o c v O 0 O c c vm u O— 4 o rn y v o m o a, v E o o u 3 u ro c z v m .. _ ° �. C: Z3 a, o O v c Z E u Z O} E u cuo c O a C g �i aJ E L a u *' m C C O .� •Y L E u H •� L m vi m c u C E -O a c_ a o a> J m �_' N N N C N= u O 7 � E O Z O` a Q E E _0 > 7 U1 5 cd oc m M E E 0,o O 0aJ a, O Q O Q c u o O M U v a� > i vZ ' 0 Oo � Cd Yan E Q c C M Ea m JOm E c Ow a _u M c CV O U -0 m cv k ' o 00 C) m(isd c o w rn0) -= �Op ' = c° Ln E ' W Ocv oLo o o a.u° o c > c- o >�°z>° °uO 0 E O mo E c J � a- o CL iCO -0 a, v c O v O aOu °u = d =v a7w LA O > 0>of atet ua-0 c $ c o os°w o ` EW v O 0da) O C a)c _ o OO > c a, O °t' c L u ai dY CO°Y tU Y ma' E O —o c E VLL au,u o E a m Y + aO ° u n_ m u-0 aU CEpiv a+ = a c l7 a� 10 a `a+ M y c c c CD o c o c E a >> o= o. Z4 a� d E N '� m m ,.,2 W o,E a G vaa aN+ 7 m a,E o o c� 7 E v 'X N O a)� uZ O O c O 3 m 3 E r .+a aui `J L L Lu c YYU._ a T T M M M ._ 0 O r4 a N W H V W O r4 '~ c O O M i r+ Li �p a o }Nr > Oi cQ+. Zch J N v Z O Q ro fo N (� m = N Y Q o c>o c s 3 a� Z Z c d zi O > Q, �-0 a c u v o c Z c O-0� + m O 7 0 + -a O m c >O .� ,u N c a0 VO— j n N O c-2 O a v 9 .- c °' Y E o _ c a) . v_ ro o-C v > j rn d a E c E( c ra E m o Y a o, v" o 0 0 rn +_ v° �o v E a v c Y .� Y Y a N D CU v m c o° •" p v, O o°° v, N a, N c O c E a u o v f0 U 3 (U "O u +' f6 l_1 a)t 7 ++ O� U N aJ N —u u N w .0 u aJ N rJ O c +-• Q ° u° a c O v o 'a o- o c r° -0 -0.2 .� rco v + �' T f6 C O O *' n3 U r6 U u ?, O n3 M " + Ou o n, E ro O° v T � O O° N u Q an ° C X Il O- (a CtU.! �' N E O V O �' ou Q V a� v L' cr p p w E, v .� ro a u °1 C N E Z CC L _ • • a` o o a, o C O1 v Ln J V) d CrC J W C C O r+ {%Ol 1 c o — u u > ra a, E v _° O Z vl s a Z)w 7 7 c o •+ a 7 c 0vu_i J a c L6 N O ON ° C Y O ' 0 .0 N N C N 7 � E G 6 +r al 7 �o a1 '� ++ N aJ O — Ip rr +J 7 a E c Wa) E_Ej t .� o ra c c O 3 a o a, v W 0 _o E m r C v c c v v o E O O in aui �° a`, .o c ai O a) C N N E 67 aJ = E a, U •O r` Z D N p Q C o u . aJ <� .� c v E -p c d •6 C a v O '7ce> •� O N O W v, ro T 'D m c C 'U r° 7 E GI jp C C Q = u p r° v v tm c o v u • n, p +' c rn— o-C• Y p= .c o c E E a7+ v w � O u C +, C E o--p n v aJ Z) IT; O L O E N O E u O v as a > = p � a- C 2 a v O v G a E� o v N M � t7 V v m a W P V W x W O ri N " o 7 v o O in u o a, E iE Fo CL -o m .- CL O m +J u u `o O o a O- t M u O Q N p m N u `1 O .Y Q L f0 c p N n L O v o E c E 41 io O � N (O •� 2 u fp N OL a T L « 3lu m Z n3 Ln u in a) a_ -0 O Fo .�2 +' 3 p O •N Ln W_ v N >+ C aJ = E +L N O Z 0 CU C ° a) 0) L O Co O C � � � O v cu v C v Q ° N 7 +-r-+ L Q) � O �D rl ro m •o u N + LL 0 v V Q _ O V +..r 00 N n3 o N c c c o '� 'r- •� 0 E ° o v ar o E O'a p z O a` o O R U ar = M N U � w � 2M 41 11.4 � � c y O w 0 u aL113i .v o m 7 00) c o C a� w M U� �; W o o a, a, rnu v c o co E c L p O c: c N O c E Qr A C 'a GI '� O_ C N V a O - m- - ��Cy 1J � C •� .- C o� E U5 L a °: 5 p p C a° rn o `c E o � as 'Q C.L W .c ' M.`� t d O E a, ' � = Q o .y > N r- L1 Y y _ �+ N to a+ d N Ln d u= a) p p_ — Z W C V7i C C vi cfl d 7. e0 O O1 ? . c m rT6 p vi n > E E ; c E 4. v u u% :. E Q_ uO 7 E ° u i o r°10 z E 0 3 Q o Ln E !E.--I v o v a o u-0 t/1 V u f0 u C � vt a 0 E Z c c o to L. ,p Q 01 Q Z Lf) V c � v vl L al Z, O L m N � � aC �Ci 7 IA C �LC L CN C v c N O (a o E E E O� i+ c 0 c O � 6 C C a a� Z E E O 'c c a O O w *' o� > u -=C' u Y V u J W C C O Ol +� in O a) p 0) v v +_ a)0)•0 +J O v U_ ` 7 yam.. 'a C C aJ U C a1 Q .0 V ` a1 O O N O v ro c E '� O ON 6 N u m� m p *' c MO i C- � m Q- v "r- `� a1 0 7 T a 0 9 S- 7 .0 0 7 N N C T O (� — N cn V v o o � L aJ +. E coif -0 IZ O E aJ .0 u p N +� >, aJ +J >- d M a) a) C O O u CU N c a� al c L F- +� C_ 0 5 •t0 O rn N M, a a .� O mu � cm N m �p H u=� a1 Z c 7 •� � 16 ,= N� YO O =' C L .O- C5U __ 0 eg ;, �°U a 6 N v �.� o-c a, v; v N � LLJ O m a °' v a v oC .S rn E E v _^ � N T a c y oC �c '- u w r`a =' p u N a o c O o j v co To �°„ �° cco O .. C O O -a c_0 O u a t p Z .� c p N -p +' c c am, m y ,� O t L .� m c +J O cu o a� vm E 10 � o O_ O C) u N c E '� •� u vi a f0 `� C c 4J O m O N C in rp c �n ca N cn C al w= C O_ 0 N E ` m ZL-. N o Q - L O v C O "a 'u vl c E> •� O y O Z- O -O N +J O= •� 7~ N O_ N .� N 'C fO U 'o •*' u .� u N V U _u �p Ol �' v y cc W E o v a° .� � a a� •� �o a E o v o a° a, c >, a ° u L Q 0 > p +' E y t m e E o a z N E Y ai C 0 O d u y '3 6i O .. .� O m v p O L ro +' C O_ y E= •v c p_0 O a 3 ^ -O v as u > C> m o)O� r n3 6 cp '� c p> .E M y a o E a>> ° '� Z E E aEi m cu v� as a L = C 'u E o o o>> 0 a- aEi v o E Ln u° c O-0 °u E Q a Q C E m� E o E °u O C a D M 7 E v L .� V O u° .9 cv m u V l7 m u 7 V cv ro n 00 a V a a -"o a c (N1 0 r4 Q LU r D V W X W O r4 o `0 e y W p Q Q Q Q a z z z z {%f N 7 A al c MOO O� v v v v 6 O' O 6 a) c a1 C Q) C aJ c H O O O 0 •p H z z z z O D. o a: O v mcn O vn in in U C LM u o J J J J C�C ..✓I W C o Ln !r 0 a) -0 rn o c c a) Q1 O N 0+ o c c ;+ c c u -0 o 67 n3 7 aJ 5 w '� •� �_ c N am-` +�•. c m-0 3 _v c u O m c N � Q 5 '4 +� � '- a v c a ro v 3 _ � .3 �_ E �_ 0 0 �° = c a, c E a o u a, axi E o v o a o a, Q rn c 0 0 .0 T a E a o v c a , M s o y c Q a o a� c t o E� a) E c •`° E O t E 3� E 6i 0)) a) CO Y N f0 p C O 2 O aJ O !Z 'O N •O aJ E QJ w e, '+J U m � a) � a) ''' �� Q u � 0) 0 m E o. = a m =� N� .X O +� ate•+ � -0 +•. O a vi u z O= U c O O c o z z l0- aJ �p a> nl = O ..� -o 1p .� d U -a A Q u +�+ c N +' N a) g> vmi Q Q J G a1 N (a N >. m A y Ge QL 4 7 L •0 c• Q> al O D o a ,� E 0. -O s m E .0 _- w -0v •� c 7 N E N 07O •p O o> 2 �a E O m c M o 7 n3 3 a) C 0 M '� N m a O a-. 3° N 3 -� c O .� to �, Q ° u H -o c a! ar az E t Y v r H c v o as o v ro c 2 v 3 c vi -6 -O 3 0 v c v� o U Y.. o ate+ U c •U C � ��., m y>-0 > O_ E f0 .+_' v c ,C `° o 2 E+ '� N 3— 0 a �, m •� C+M-0 W c m o +O+ c V 7 Ol 'a, N Q v 2 r O a j, m a� N L o c; .v W v 3 ° E "n .0 0 Ln Q W .� O N 0 O D ar a 7 O z fl n v y v .N O c v aJ E+ c au v l7 O_ cL 'Q c N g o v A E c �, m m `-' 3 c ``° o f .o a, E c w Q a m a a v n3 N v 3 f O o c_ cu G '� c a, 0 p 0= O d c 4 +. E m 00 >a] o m c, = E n v + a'Q o fp a1CL E � °i a' a N a '� -0 u u0`i _ u 'Y-' > .v '> .2 y m +. '> u .v (D la 'o O z C z p O a m >. 0 o E M S v •X v p 0 0 0 .V a um .X ° 'M o a 0 0 a w Q n O a-o E z 2 a_ .. 2 Z-0 0_ a) CE 3 N1 0_ v 0 o 0_ n. V 'i N M 17 M i Ln M Li b lU R Q v a E } a H W r r lJ W W JO G C O u L. W m U a &, J h C E a, p L c c E + c E ° a) O v > U N V1 °1 a1 C 2 a1 6 N C C E O CJ a1 lu L_ "O 3 o n 3 m E `�° E c v Y E Y L L c� a N� L +� O w w w a� w w aJ `° E ,C V i 7 cu E co O p� c c v a>i a>i a>i a>i Z c ECL 2 In nNOI m a �� v a) m > .v - c In �n In O ` 01 V ° O I.n In Q � a�i EL .� v Z N v�i C 7 aL--� L- O O O O> E u > E O Q M f .N N N N O O a C N N (v 6 a O Q `1 "O C -° c m >' a� `a c *>_'' O � L i^ p O O O O = N> N C u •- C � V O O> d .� U E �n 2 �n f6 N d a)N - N Ol 0 + +� +� O c 0N v o' p v C w c 7 +-' C +� + 3 '.00 7 y 0 ,O 0 C C C C E v v 'c a � � v v� a, v v� U a, c � 0 0 L O L 2 p +L a� C Q Q O_ Q Q 4, OQ . c v c ro a� n -q m ~ O O }' O O E ~ :� +' O fU .--I M r, Ln lD .E � p is a) .0 r" r V ,� V N c 'i ' N> aJ `^ O In O N E C w In O ri U ++ c 2 O C C C m a) O C aJ C m N [V m �' O N O O 'aJ QLr- .0 'N E q m V �n O O l0 3 v ,� O +QJ .� cu 0) N u m rO Q' E Ou a) O 01 • • • • • L O E m W .E +� +� L O m a` o 0 O 0 u lu NLM � u � t rl .� al r V tC o I L a) m a, L — Lna, Z) .Ln 2 r v v a1 a+ N v o Q fD in C C ? ++ vi = "a) L O r0 Ol C Ol X u ON E ++ -O -p C'Ol-N E E O w Qj ` C 3utC LnO aCO lC NO°- Z O 0) O aJ Q- •y, p f6 10 �O +�. a1 N C C 7 0 N p '� C fO in u -,5 C p .� C E u� O m o v .0 N N +�+ to 3 D)O C 7 .�-^ c E a, u a� r, � c ry 6 E O C O. v u ` 2 C S ,a� c ro p c N w O O o v vari L 3 ro p a� 0 E O c .� IA Z '_' +, p .x �-. u Q a a ,, D v u of C7 v Y f0 c > X p E > v a� c 2 a W LU D_ v�i C -O O N ro L INO 4! N N .0 •- U �n 0).� > +L-. °V 30 m ++ C rn ` a1 Ol T -° '' u 3 �' 0) a) = L CU C E 7 a) N O CO c N 2C -0 ate+ aii 5-o ?-.' fuE 0 C tf o c o s A a m a, �° o s u L c E a E E° v d a, u° c' v u g° o .. O W O O c '+' a� v O N �, c e a v co of °- . - Mo 6 ° .� u v 3 R w a)y c c c a�i c c' Z, ai 0 E> 4i ` O v O°' y o> —m° a '° c c Ln l07 in l07 E c w 0 v 2> 0 E w .S aEi �o of Ln r-I 6 O ri o `0 c V 1. Q Q Q z Z C J Ch 5 v1 E a, " > > N Y ,O C N of m 0 uEw L > cu w O . vi o .E a, c a O Y ° MV1 L f0_ 'r-� V u f` ^ ro U f0 ° v N 7 --+' C N O °- +�+ C � u � .r- ro Y O_ � c O Q E 0 O 3 o O Y L o Y C 4' �+ _ 0 lJ O O io O C N c v N 0)N f6 Y f6 :3 v O v ++ Ol O _ No 0 N Q C,o G t 3° +, m y fl CL CL E Q c o C -0 (o a) Mu ' t6 v 7 7 Q .9 C E m E U 6 6 c 0- u ro E Y � _ a m o, C a'o, m o; lD o m a) o ai o v 3 v E Q 3 a> z In o z L o M o a, V = C LM In In > A J 40 w G C o V in TN 2 c O Y m — c-C t r. v Y-.fO a a) N O *' a� " vi v E aJ ` m a`� v, o c-0 •N > C fo E U _� N V C- !g 5 `J �• V1 O N E '+� L d• w L E o i w C c a� V .. " c 'E a W N m .M u m N 0 m _° 0 O N w C ° CL ° m 0 W ° 7 E o °o � 'u - 3 N vi t c L ° `N z cu E t`o ,a += R 2 Gi O V N V _ C aJ C fR.i Y o ° a z N N_3 Z c oc� a m (U +J p u Yn u v L • a s a a) � c ,= z 3 L .Y N YO u X �a O W �n t m 'O C ++ 12 c C O- d O c -0 m N O O y C p o C W f0 +' t7 Oo C +_+ O vi c v m a— lJ 'u + a� CL O a .o 3 C E w c u o M —m c E a� +f°-• c c L Q '� .� Q� c .a a v I. E p ^° E c- .`. L d N c Ou f6 M N '� .0 vi o N U1 U d O D Q v Im m 7� O O .O. a>i �a ro O �JQl7a.� v� Q�n� rno I- I.+ v.� �O n a Z 0 r-I Q N W H D V W x W O ri C 0 L d o >w� _or 2 iz a a a -O N a, o ra 3 c a, oil— N v > CL a ar a c v o 7 O L N N II •� a+ f6 f6 O C a, r0 c a=-• L W H c Q in O- a - ra 0 -O >, O O 0 c �e o ` N N a1 Q S C V C C1 O `� o 6 (O O' W .� = O 0 j Q d c v C O_ E CL a 3 a, (U _ to E� o a, •U CC: o 41 o a, 2 c rya c a 0) 0'c 'v c O a v t O v c t O O= '_� •E ra c 0 a, Q U o w CC O O r—ua aJ N u m p a, O_ Q -O Y > - `1 fO N. O roo N 0 Ol U O U > C C O_ '� v a, 0 u a, a) a " m u (U > o' 7 n o= c — 0 E m �' E c E �e O 3 ,, Q .c o O C 2 W O >, .� m- u-o u 3 c Y ro U O a+ 'p MLl O_ [p N U c C N N O O -O Q N x U c C H av-• 7 a a, `Jro p N' m II z t N N ro 2O E > v in O a, p 0 U Oda` o E v N 6 Q O p O a, v 62 u a, cu L a � •� c C 01 > M = rn a U) Ln a 40 v J J .? W c O O O � LM v in a u C N p wc D I a n u C � 07 a, o M Z O Q a, E c o o 3 a v n a� v v c a CL 0 t 3 c •co� u o E� 0 oo r� u Eo n a) c u In H c _ -0 a) v a' � ro Z o E L Q L +� p E .O `- o N O vS p' a) mc N Ou c u a, +O+ a t %n 0 a-0 O_Ln � g E =^ �E = 1 f6 a 0) a .� c v ;o m E .o ` E 3 -Et ++ -O a+ a, -d m O1 O c a, v o y—a) E ro o Y> O m= c �' c ro a, =� c 3 a, u u J a ro v� a Z N U aJ ' V 3 t r6 '� 7 ++ c E p �_ I c O O O v J L ro = O m CL t Im •K c W •r, O ro J O U N a, O Q O O O, a, E E Y •� 3 •L A a, O O U W an c t N C C r6 lOJ 'C a0-• rD O Y C fd O O E L +O-• w vi V O m O N S '� c rca _ Q O N to a, v o c v N C O C d O� O lu, O '^ Q� p v 0 0 C Op O` v3i � O Q W� c aE, ° a, o m p o a; c ar 0� O o" -acn c O Y d O_ > '� •> _ N 'C O fO N N N m •� ai O •c O OC u c O m c rd 7 a, c •X E N N N fr1 � �• Z J U Q rn 6 14 c Li Q Q Q Lm C Q � Z Z Z iA d 7 N c O �o 01 � v � v v v 6 0- T 6 N N 0 m ao 0,0 z z r Z 0 0 7 a` o 14- O W u m c vi U v) J > _ G o n NLM x co of c o N 14 -p 0 a C 0 N O u c w- O a� �'^., °- T o 3= v, c .O E -- v E .O c ° Y c ai L Y m v c 0- v^ .- v Y Y u +� 2 -a r, c Ln a Z 'N o+ o v 0 °3 En � o a v o Q •X 0 •� O .5 �° v O N Q o fa E O ON �° Z) Y E -a U 3 °° a O C °' O O v of � a •� N s v uui = N 0 -- O d a V 3 U v o Y ,� v o u ° L a� O O N d 7 - o C OCl Q ai N �O Q d 0 N N 0 L •+, ^' E O .y = O N .v E c u p E,� c c 0 o 9 E Roc? _ V Y+ "°'vu� 'c ro 0) r_ a N mom �' 2 47 0LU ��? a E 0O O ^ L O` Q C. .T❑ O d U w 5 O n M N '� N E 7 C.- D o +L' N D Cl w 46 w (O d O ai O 2 a o ." m .� N c Q 3 p p .a l7 c fO = O 'a Z c u Z E Y a, o f a,75• 3 Z N ° E o Ja °��' o °�' ° 10 - v c a-o 3 g- 0 ° ,� o a •° c v O s w c E +' '� v Y u co m E Oi O � u p d rn O O u 0 m 'v c W O N 0 = c c C O d y 0 w a'' N c H r a� c> : '- 3 = c L '�� aL-+ •-Z, �'_ d •� C c O N N .o Y v p W Cm u� C C � C •X o, .� �O Y �6 +' C Y .� C .0 C C- N Q >� � N S O f0 G7 w- i C N N +�., Y C v f0 Y O +m+ +m+ L a+ c E c a� c +• ' " 3 ° E ° + o ra o E aci aci `° .ro w E o c 3 d _ CL LnN—^ .a ro ro 3 E E ro 0 0 ,_ v -0 a Q) Q) a� O to c 4.7 •� a u p > E E 4. 3 v u' 2 m V 3 o°C a ou $ m 3 Ica .E .E .E n n � 14 t5 0 c of Ln 0 0 a n a 0 E Z .A 00 O r4 C c L. 4-Q Y' z z z a�>r J N C h N 7 m al C O .w C1 v � � v d 6 N C aJ C aJ C O Z O Z p Z 0 U. C a o w O (P u ai C M > m LA J LA J V) a! u C J J L C O C1 +' Vf CL > C U d O w C In °a W �aca ', Va 7 c C � . O l O 4- O ,p � 0(U=� '+cEp -u oo ]O Q �d O p c o m 3 O> a rn E oo F E'm C 0 m E 75 a— IA m c Z p m pc C C Ea� C m 3 .� Q 6 m E y p U c v a1 +L' E +' u a� + IA u p y y +., 'C, ro a v a* m e cu O p E _ c O +� C 2 a c- d X aci c (D v � a �_ Z v E v t N +� == Z cCo v v E� •0 _ m 7 ++ O +' N y m O Q m +� Q c -p a, v 01 � S x Q W y .� c a c a am+ .� 3 v .v a .0 v3 —2 :° ° ` o v a 3 Z t v a; c 0 o o W 7 -a= O C a u. o a) d c> O v o p a m 3 a m c Q p 0,O d 3 *' a m uo Cp p-L o 3° Z a, c *; '� v 7 C t �' N o .r a� c c p, m a N . m +- a, u v O J m v m c M L C m O .r h O 0 •' v� W a C l9 a v 7 Oi +� N c Y L aa) U ,_ c 3 C E , c c 3 E- O 7 ,� - o m v O aJ w 7 fp C >, V x E u +j ' m m aJ L. as Q m O y=j _� c t7 a�i a�i a� Y E v uu E O a 0 pu p c a��+ a v O a 0 a C a' 'z v C7 (u c w O fl a>i +' =_ •E a E a O E m y C C Y (U E u E j d °1 v E O +' E a m n c C N ro a� c v c m N- a m +� o E 2 .°J. ac a E 3 w -0 c as a, m' >, o o m o� `D c E o N m (u '� +. = IM v >, O e to c 3 m o .� d w a, O a '° c. 3> O +-� O z 3 r� E o u v= `o m s E v 6 C. a`i a, a+ O- > 0 m v 'c m o E N m E m v v a N ? c �t 0o v w C a 0-2 of 3 O c E m_ ,�, O. O O Q a in E v c 0 O1 v l7 .� '� 7 vim- O o c vi o E O N m � oo ao cr le rn O r4 CQ G N W V W x W O ri o `0 e V W R Q Q M 9 is C Q+ Z Z j Ch 'u1 � N tY 7 tY C co 01 v v a6i a6i a� c v c O ° Z Z 0 a` o O to � C pM V) in J v C�C � J w G C O p1 +' {%f o w aJ v o c u 0:3 of O a�� °+,� c a, o c ° v O �� o,v �.0 C: p Q N L 01 C 0 E u'u C Np 7 E n' �n Y N L '> a.., o 0 a Ol C° a.+ Q ° � C) l.J vO jp C 2 c c o u ." N v O U �, •� Q J c L o0 c o to a Y O C 7 O 0- o ' rp W E d C N j � rip o� Z o •- _ c O N O — d o L ._ vs tp a a t K * N m° c m 1° 0 vm 0 6 d .- LX c R c c c E rig _ `� 'r d o •2 c a y a`�i m 2 `° ° 3 c- t w m o E E u °' .0 �. u° '0 3 4 c L° c g f6 n ac, E v n3 m c o u J ca o o v Q v v is O-6 coo 6E o 2 fl O ro E c 3 c2 fa u E as m� vi oC 0 CA a) w N �, 0 'o C vi Z Q a�i c� ^ c c U U o c O ,�- c m O +�+ Of C o a>i >, v v c 0 r N '.0 • c v a �° d v �_ •� N 6 7 C -O E ° `n 7 +' C 11 m V f6 10 w O- N L �, aJ d O= u U In �j E aJ W ax] J M u U O C m o w � .c •. K O` O C 0) J� v c (O y C � � C "O L p 3 E E a °_ o c +�+ +�+ O W a cw o� v u,.Z, o a E o C•+ u• 0 u a E ca'�' �u �' a*J 0 ate+ Li C o •—'' 41 +�+ }, f0 +�+ aJ +�+ ��,, C c N u a+ E w c E" E O E '—° O c N V _v v 1° m m W 7 7 >0 7 L •++ U T - c +r°. N 2 ,� E N T v C N U 7 c . U {y G C a �' y a N +L+ .. t0 �+ O °° O N Y m 'x a� 2 E ,� J2 Q> 7 E D_ O Ol al �p v> E v a� J au O -o O aJ t7 w u tJ to a a +� O aJ 3 m ._ v, to N ._ w " l7 l7 m fl t!1 t0 0o ao V v .o a c a 0 CV i O 14 Q W H V W x W G c O ML. Go , Q Q Q Q > ' Z Z z z cn N G7 7 m as C 0 ,w 6 6 6 6 a1 c a! C a) c N c z z z z O a` o w a+ a+ o u O1 C > m rn rn C O Im +' to M v> In 3 O ro - O O +J Y '� c -a E C o rn > c M u m ro c O p U. .m z ^ v G, —' &A +m w ce c E'o m O m ° O ai ^ •+� c u —° m + O m ,y fG u , -a vi C E O m° E y O p O .a- c v m E c �O u v c a 2 CU �, O c o-0_ c Q° O a LL a>i d I? a>> = O° m C rn `o w • o ro E 4 .. o a 3 .v > c a o u G' o c a, o o fO o z y a E c 3> p o m a) W u N m 2 3 cm Ol Q aJ J v Z Z v= T'-6 z y R G E N a O °� 3 °1 m o c m a0+ O M� vi aJ v 0) c N�` ° 3 3 CL ri f° c c O O m--2 E N LL 0O ° c .� c p L E_ ^ C v o LL as 0O 'O ruo N W t N m 2 o 7 tm C O 'O n E E p +� d m O c O u a) 3 v 4 z O Q �, a+ E m t m +, u° v_ O m a, m N E rto. C _o ._� J '� O '} a N E o z Q "✓3 .r — i 0 0 c _ 0i L o a1 7 v o Go E a a ° 0- 2 z c o J c o u ° ° ° +. > c LA cv rn u c O N a, u+ _ F- z M 0) a, � o � Q a c - c `o s � v CL o > w ,E ° a ° O m+ °' O O a o m fa c° O v u c p m O 3 > o a� O `` m c a) m m E �c t Z3 a v > u O am+ c c m o C 3-0 O x> O a� m m a W p m rn x 0) c v m m 2 m t +; Gi 0 W a' c° •' s o o c o Q= a o ° Q, a� v° E o a >+ 0 0 �.. o E t o °' a� H c v 'y c w E > ro .Q o E a c E 3 -O o �+ yr ° L E yr .� O Z+ a) = rn u .0 N O _ U �- C ° N Gc+ a`, o- d ac, E c a' aci o c .? o o a Q rco ° c C v E E = c E +O,' E p E t z _ m >' _a>, aaii ro `' u m E cl c w Q •� N> E _v I�ir a _� o o ai rca .� °�' u= c °J v Q t a s E-0 v v v Q �' a fa a vi rro rco .E Lu .i o .E r`mo ° v-Z a o S 0 P GD 01 � oD Go Go 00 .A r'4 O r--I ce Q N W P v W W he La c O o,,.., a > c Q z Z J � C G N N aJ a7 m Cal L C 0 fa a N � N a) C a) c O O Z z 0 IL o y m p� U U C > u C C o Ol +' V1 a+ m '� O fO T = .� t aJ t 'O O E .0 Ou a•+ 3 l7 C -0 N Z =O Qj ovaJ m 0)—Q O m s C E o z Q � =u M O = -O j O1 nu� =a,O O E N+ E-o opvU 0 o�� .°E l cO al 0 Q- ra) dm c O = >C3 d7 7 as ❑ ❑ �n O in3 �> m E M 3 a. C 'a Q a d 3 a 'u E °' E u �' c v c v E 3 ° .� = 3 = Ou y E 3: vi E �o _„ v �n O ° c -p z p W v p c a� IZ > a1 c 'o m o u C C .� _ a, o c o vi a� ° Q c° aj O c m ns Q- o > a, E o u> c 22 a-• c 2 p a° a o fO 'u °' s E c v° o� o E a13 w m m - c u c� u i +�+ ra +� p � a`j � W ._ 7 u N 0 0 cr '� p O Q a� aJ c c ro c w" w '+ c +� p �=i, "a E . v=i O m W 0 c0 � W ` � (p ` � '++ Cl .0 .0 IZ LU W c 'N (U N Q u � c w- 9 O in = a) y Q m > m "O J T T to C ++ is +�+ `n y c M '� Y u N +�+ •❑ u c c 'U c M E a1 CW O �' O L � -a +' p' = u �p a1 •a, ro i m A c a, '� 3 2 3� _ E E .E o� o v 'c 3 •" c E v Ln E a) E v E rn c c Q a d "75 u coo °1 s E E ° p L 2 O_ ++ ° lJ �^ w e° C+ O ._ v p c° u ._ aJ s E E +� aa) a�i v "p +� E ._ ._ in m � 7 0 O U OC U p O v=� u a u v- a c ._ ri N ri ri ao co v v a E Z u LN N N i O ,4 Q W F V W W aj '0 C O O M■. a, o > w w M a Z a Z a)C Q ++ J � C N d IA IA m Cal L C O 01 v � C O O Z Z O a` o 0 W 4. ar C > M U J V V C J J W C C p IA C a, N U O C O �„ N v ° v N c u v v *' *' 'u o cu f a� Q ° v �o ro �a {H Ol '��-, � vu 'n N O U N c61 O C +' a �> O C v� O -aO ° a) t� c p► -O '"�' v m w c m s c •`n 0 c t , au C U ca �n m c E uo 2 O t c m _� u s� O C 61 Q a_+ 3 ` C CM, ` -Q aJ Q lJ .� U ++ C .0 N `o ++ c c� p o D E C u N u N :° rco C C) 3 c Q J H D 3 c aJ -2� o° O a c a5 �° c 3 C: �n w 2 o o ° +; °1 u' C a p` O o° E nz �_ v'Q� c c ° J T° a° s o o CL °' o� o Z lJ o E 7 � a� W a1 a> . _ c . 7 a) O - u m p is W .� C -O > •0 — c m aJ i+ L Q aJ .0 o o VI +�+ ,� C Cl- .N 'c vi '� c O. 00 s Cr d ,Y„ d c 0 3 0' Ln .E o 3 > o .O- w rn O ol o a v> _ ., c c u C Of aJ �- v C p u E :° 'ca aci C a fD H d w O +� o ro O 7 O C O O a5 ca O— Q p = Y ,� " c� a+ O u ra v-a E c v c s1 J ,., = ai T o 3 ra %7 e ° m ar ar o o m n ._ w p o T 'U o a, c ns W -0 C C CL = CC t E 'a+ ° +L+ Q . ^ ._ +� O ^ x N m ,C .0 w *�' a1 E Y N N N N +�+ ai ` O a, .r v Q) C� +S+ cu E f0 E O U W c a3 ar v a 7 0 E V E E c Y C _ L Y O C CL N t u v d c _ t '!� C C 1.1 a° O_ E E a u a� `—° m cat � T m c °c' a N o m u C g °C ° ° c rn E a� O a t u t u 7 O. +r '° t .° O 3 v 'c _E c .E c a' ro m p = c E +� - ° �= +O`+ � C O u a� vui O Op C..c v a� rn 01 p c .2) aJ v O to E .� v� m v u u co a, .S +� v a� 3 o E a m v u in LL cn = v rn CD CO t§ rn N O 14 Q N W F V W W O ri a z N OJ V N A C4a L C O M f0 d1 d. 0 a` o O u co C U Ol 0 h r u l0 CL E m e O1 E C O C W Z _v J � v O c -0 O 'M 0 cO E O 1° aJ u c = > N O z N E u Q �rp>-- a) rp J .p '^ E C 3 c —° cm CIO� (U a) a) N Q 3 .E v O •,� N _ n + N u n CL �= 3 'Q u o w B Ea Y n = O O c ai •� c L (O O V .fJ -a u -M ai c U �— Y C p c c .p .€ j •X 'a C p1 +' aY+ a1 of a1 -0 a1 7 O �„ c 3 c= 0 m c= v a� v N O - 3 o N -p Y = ♦_ p 7 u>1 O C C r +- a m 'c 3 c O tea, .Q `° O u u o E O u +� u m € rO co " " v m+-.� aan N a) Cd Q 0 2 'n p •� �, M 0-0 N z c0 c O m Z E 'n v p Q '� O- u-0 a O a� 0 C .� c a u-5 =O a� � = u E �^ y°, 3 5 o O z> 0 o (u o c o �° • , p o € €CL a aci aci o € O C O > +`�+ Z , � a O_ Ol rcO V 7 € > Q 'mOV � a WE .E € Y Ln OR Iq C C1 v Q z H J W G y N VI : Y a > c a � O -3-- M E c° O E In a w E -Q V "a - 'O ah' :� v z r _ a c E R1 r C N c b v u C CL C o E € y 2 4 [ a a a € m O .ro p 7N'+ - CL ' n N aa�C.E -0 CLm Q z Ln J N On a 0 QL 0 C 0 M. M. O 5 N W E, a CL cc a, C c ` O u W Q Q Q in = Q Z z z a>i J � C ro W v > *' o al p 01 U N + O O Y 3- ,r Y O U ro y c -2V c c1 V m O m E M "C Q W � •Y OO V m M E -O IAM Nuu 0 O" a C O O C - N O UJ C C 7 m a) i3 W C ra as p1 fl a1 Q _p io ±� -0 E c > Y V — N L W v Vl > CO u G C a N Ol L s C C 0 O c 7 •:3 •Y O t (L U d v C ' 2cli O C N W C C C C C ate.. L W U O> u - p z O Z ; O Z +� 3 a, o m O •� c y °C IL O O V f�a to > m1 J C Z rn J rZ 2 2 Z O O in �O N W c rYa -00 •N a) O C Lp a C y > *:' Y V1 or-, u -O N m v N `J C > p w o o- o > W+ v .E 2 >, ro J- C W oc C c O > J •N C •Q c +O+ M U y Z N O •p O W -Wp E— CO Y v+i u N a) rn Q O .rZ O -0 - -O O y C -j O •N 'n O p� yr N W .W ro u Q v .I_^ N O w O c 7 V_ m U Y s Q O_ W p Z W c c > ' uxj Z E Q c ._ O W C D Y 0 ++ m W �+ s Y O `� Q W U Q VI w W O_ X O O O a) 'Y Y C {.1 aJ O — W U rn — Q to .L C to u v O O cu a W -C o U O C� Oa) WY O aa C 7W a c +m O c > a, E rY W sYE .Ea.7 C c -•OaCl u W Y W O W W }� W Z yO `7 O O O 0C � Q (' V a1 a)> u C� O c u Z c¢ O_OC a d 0CL 7W O `m C c > c o �a)C0Ern0) 0) 3p , a) a E 3 4. 02cu > 0 >p c as Q m o i Y o v o o= m 3 .� W 3 a 3 0 -� C a! ra c d C m w W z v p C d> r0 U X `^ (6 a1 O C M Y Q rn W W rn aJ W aJ Ol C O C W a1 rn M > m p E O H aJ r(Lin O C Y :� O E Y W C C O p1 > ._ Y 4. �+ ra C C ro ° s N '^ X ro m E •� 7 2 +' W 'O O Y� 7 E > 7 of v O c r0 N N p ro a) Y C W vi N C u C Z C c o� D o w o E W a E u'"i o a c. u>>" fO a W Q c a C '� rn g c c U r0 (O o J 3 •U > r0 E .— x x W W W 'O E Y E r O O Y x o W d O_ O 0 Cl rl ri N Ln N O r4 Q N W V W X W O ri 4-C 0 O ro L 'a a, „ m C Q a Z a Z J {A aJ M cp Y lLJ C O a) O ~ N > C r0 °C Y ` N ro Y o, o C Qi E l/j Oi p v OU _ v, a, o D v Ili a) E ZI v v v '� -0 j r0 Q a) w C a) V L C .� L ,C 0) > te) aU E u 0 m 3 +`°° IA W >> N j— a) C C .c N Y c N O Q p rn ro Y a) > -0 E L O� o c7 7 N C aY" L Oo C O Y v�i M o a)Y M -0v O EoE c v m > Y 12 a) ` "C Y E *' L t0 C 7 G 'O u� o O O `^ L v c c O O v, pu I-O � .LM.E v O.. m -0 a) v .� •� v 0 c C a) -6 ) O (CL O m g � n E- C O +- V EO O -0) u O cE,O 0) O u E '3 c) co v 0 O �' o �° a o •� C a) Q) U E E c a1 a) L 6 7 a) r0 7 N •U p u 0 0 3 Y v O V) p x Y a) .= o p x Q u a) Q E v OL a) a af 0- O_ v Ln v s m a p a) N E a a v C a, c ro x E Z w . Z 0 M c .« +, O a, u m c �' J J u iCC+ J w G c O O� r {A r C 0 E G E O O 0 c Q O > QJ -C E •m w a t [ro +�+ a 0)v E � $A j m c O o v m � C ;.• V Y 3 'u C p O w7 p ro w O 12 O C 0 G O m E E E _qu0,= v o Z g c W a) u G N Y •x d m m S a> m y 6 y E J In L ro A O a n n) o > > Z rl e-1 r � N 0 ,4 o a w e o d L L.a Q Q Q a 06 > O Q ++ Z Z Z N J Ol � 4 o a C o = � o, O � W a O cc o }I O V m v Q c Z a d c y E a ii Q 6 A v O a`6i a6i C O Z W .D C O Z Z o ` O ` _ ar a O 0 a,ca' > = U J C •' 'm O O +' c0, E V1 � O. M o 2 u O U u U Q U 0 -�:' (1) 0a v� +, a- c vi ra -a t is �, > a� a) " o > O O •0 > Y i a� CO ra C Q ra � v, Q) v c O O c C -a '.-. � O o Q ai � o E OYU Oi aJ c O m O O U v E Z oU rnO E a O 0E o a) uL -0 U 0) •- E .0 O "a c c Ww ta) ca N cw '�' •�aC L I a i vv c u °a u V 'r c o o c 3 u `° a Q E a 3 E o c O - E to o C c c c aci (U C ai v Y Z E v +' a y a ai 2 O o-0� a Z o oa c a E_' a (U , oZ E ._E O rn '� o c oE c O c o c . o Nru a, v� Z;� c a c o soCL " -E o U c ai A! O O _ c c' dO O U + ON CU > m aJ C m cE Cc �W v.Ca3c-i rUauy�co00o om o o E o aa m E E c U O o VN W2 ^p OO n' o — a- M Xa# O c0cN NoiC a ti.0 v � O p N Oai° Ev au >� E U MQa> . v av N^1�+E av OU O M z ey N U 3 Q H W H u W W 2 4 y m CL E r C a7 E C O C W Z IZ >. N m L C c O T EY a-r C O = 0 O t a z q O C IL a a qm O v O C 0 _ u 61 O m u ❑ CL a d u 7 p E O v rn= u a CL o aI E c LU r- c a� y c m a O Z N YO O O c0 0 u E o' T o N Q ro U N ri Q z VI aJ C = M 6 a) h � 2 O ++ C V Z R LL J c C C �^ d CL o Y O v v v - -RO a a W Q- o {A E o E Y C L '0 () C 7a n3 N vi c = E = E v u E C)o u QJ -0 C [O ` LL Y ❑_ Y C f6 o a m o o cuC 0- O n -2 N R _ N a N o p-❑ E c QZ'A = CU� CU W 6 Z Q .0 = V vOi a .v C N •- o ri to O vOi m 0_ N N M ri Q Z V J Z v Q ro O d C m w N m O y c c) -0 0❑ = c aJ a C aJ {A N N C _, — �'' C a) CL.-0 7 C O u 'x O u 7 - _ O Q .0 O u date.+ O t6 w ►+ o c o o t m O Y 47 Il Y a w f6 C m -0 a1 aJ O C -O y r 'v 0 c R ❑ E v E C a� aGl -0 > L a) N p E c Y a E z a) OV 0- 'Y a)W CLJ Z c m c m E '= a a+ • a1 v A 6 E u v c 7 O O C 0 O ❑� c E E a a, o u a, o w o E `Y° o N 2 0_ 'O u a) Vn u N M ri I 0 E z t� i; 00 (V i O .--I O rl `~ c o O M i .p �w m Z a a c Q V Z Z p1 in N N CaJ C C O ,w m 01 r � v v D 6 0 � � v � a1 a1 � � c Z z o Z O a` o w d a+ O N - LM U d V J J J J �F. O Ol +' {%f m v o� C O cu c m vi c ^ +� -0 7 c c+� u +--o E v m v cs- W v `O u_ r u a�ci * a��i 3 a o m� 2° v ° E o +. (U v u n d aEi v v .- v -p o c _u c a, v ,� E v3 X m .E Z -O N V1 a Q 7 7 c i+ v� 'u c aJ O O m v v c p 0 m v .CL aci axi v v E E v[2 a p E v o -o E o c w 3 a v � v .fl Z a, o a > t E v o axi 'u t 6 v y v v l7 E a a •� s o v vu o N u y' `° v u u 0 0 o- a o f a (U Z) u 3 vt o 3 v a'0 aw vclj.v o o—U (U Nv� c '^ cu o• E aJ ,0 vi 0 D- — a W O C E a m a o a 3 a c c m m o >, o c v u v im? W c o .E o� .Z 2 0 c c' m v m a m u o Q v E aci o v c v v c v Z 3 Y w e t c v— v c m E E o a .r ,o v .S v a n �o v_ c c° •}>- o c ° o, E o u Ou aci a`� E o u c a co ^ v c E m io v 6 �° a0i u u> -0 m c c ,v, c E p 3 •+ O vi +� *' v ou o v m c L c c v O m c n Y m v" m v v E c v v E v c> �o p +� t W a CO O N v O •� a _ C 6 E Q o +J •� u *' d •N �° 3 'u - O u v v u v o c a`�i c E osv, v c> vn aci 2 .E rn o m E a E v� � z; N u d E c c a o u- 6 Z a .5 u E '> o E_ o S o a� a �' a1°, _ °� o Qr v,� 5 �� u ai o Q au o ug oa>3�- c z cQ.�v x v c E o a, c v o c o v o^ J° u x v a� cn u rl to o a. m N a a "O u m J u v u N an d a. v M rm M M M v � � i, C E 0 9 v a a v u d 00 m N O r-I 0 ri `0 c O m W , Q Q Q J Q O1 Z Z Z N N IA IA m CW L C O a+ m COf C v � N N C N C aJ C O O O Z Z Z O a` o O u m C AM V in J V J 7 V C�C J J 4•. L O r .LM Ln c Z 3 (6 N U E 0) C .0 O aF N C J c ° C m --E C C U s°0- cu ms O -0N m Ut ` CL a U ^ v 2 Cl aJ Z i Q E uc = Zp ° aL a ° > Yu a; re M > m 1 U (U S 0) Cr0 .�0.O m —.0 O Nc-0 0 3 W— _C--0E m _ C Or N O' Q O O C:p O 0 w°❑ o C p dpu Ow y' Y Y N° O aci m 'Y m m 'u a� 7 ° v O m d c o rn a � Q 07 d vi °° u c w Q p c z E E_ a, m c ° 3 °x' v t o ;- a 06 C V Y L aJ a) � V_I o N V ° O C Y p_ o *' O 'x Y �+. " ra c t '� Q c c C Oi v d w a� o a>i E n -o umi m ° 0 p o 3 v c p m O v c a O c •mac—, m o c cu a, m (U :.' 3 o c 5 v ❑ �' ,v p x W L 0 3 L N CO E 7 d 'O V N O aJ c v p o-C. �u a) Y t p a) Y u . C7 Y_ .� -p u c rp u— O_ '+ O _° 0 5 aJ O-0° t c �, +J U (u w m c to ` v v O c U 3 r0 O. �+ v 3 ro a) p m m- v, `c a' ar ° Y c} ai 3 c m c v u c O m C L > s a! "O -O C aJ N C -° m c Q (U � m m rn O a ai C R �= r U p v .� m Y rn a; °J E (U of Z E p°= Y o c a an w Y U O ° u -p o E c m +; 7 m 3 E L v � ° v m Q o o :_ 3 o E m s lu v m E .v o a `e dCY o u c 6 N" m O-0 u u V 0 Q u Q v N v O .E , d m 2 u 3 v�i ra ro m N is .� ro T m In yr o rt 2 Q 0 3 Q. a E N d' io Li Li rvi rn rrf u E Z O m 0 ,4 ce Q N W P V W X W c c o $ > = Z Z Z � vl N N 7 CW C C O t+ !0 01 C v � 6 N C C C Z Z Z V O a` c d o O1 V) V H E O LM a+ 'vf L l 3.2 Z 0)w Z s c J o+ a+ N J y, t O w a+ fD c X o d v w c ai a ° *' 3 O D `O 61 w ol O w 3 e u_ x c CU In 0 :E a) E Z, E u �' c a m U Z a O w a O ol w o u E c m a•E lJ ` w w a w o w E w Y= 0 v o= w v a rEo uo w3 c J 0 'J v° C `� s rya a>i o E E c a `�° c Y c wi ° o_= u -0+� +• 3 p y c a``Oi 0 v; -aoi .o t at v 2 y o E c v Y o Y o Q v. v cu 3 �> �' c` v .2 Q c o E (U 1� Q a 0 e �c 01 E" p o o �c E cu a, ro _� o w 2 3 0 0 c t a Ou W t`�i " C fO ,� m o d w •*' E m= y 0 a`, 0)i uo - c a c u � •C ro = +� w c 3 ai `° c .� v u a v�ni d ro c " c - In N 3 .-� a m 0 D ro w 3 w co o o w `o �o o =- w w w w c o uc� v ro a d `� a^ c 3 E o c v 3 > -° z c O 'v c `w^ >, o a v-0 p v, w c-0 o o o a •- c u c 0* c s w u s 'c w t 3= a-0 aw o x c > +. c w •� w� v0- w= 0 O w= .� o w •N w w o ,� -d E c a 6 u o '{' E a+ _ c o E O '� v a .>u �o ro o w ai v �' c Z w o>> E a �aoi d °�' a E> w a 6i Q= c E "" g° V o w° w j p o c p 3 E of n a`ui c 2 V ro u �0 2 0 w cu a a-o 2 p Ou '� cm u 'i c N a a-0 u N 3 3 a c ro vw co �o n M M rn G O G .01 h I I 0 U o, c a ti J C% 01 a U .Q Q 2 Q Z is Q N W H V W W O .4 o c ° ° ", a a a a JC Q Z Z Z Z °1 N al m Cal L C ° .w m i+ L aJ `1 N iJ aJ a) aJ N O Z O Z O Z O Z O a` o 0 a, +. ° v m C 2 J J J M J J �_ C ° C1 ++ Vl +' O0 O C T cu N `° �O � O a+ = 3 _ '+ J= � -0 E -o'� 0 5 E � N N .s 0)Z o V (u�i ate+ O Ol n3 3 w a7 > -p 'O ate•+ vi •� O u✓t � a v v O_ � O s F. n �_ m y 7 u u O n Q C E u O. c 3 0 `0 c c 3 u - v .3 o v E N °,,' 3 E 3 a -Z Li w o al C oo o w = a a Cl a ++ o O m 3 V H �C ai L@L,,71 C1 t'L N Q. yr _ 0 y .0 tea,CL W m i+ 3 '" a a c° a, E OL v v> g •o a y (o � d a`, ++ E C 2 a o �= a�ui v c v '�° v L = E c v �. c. Z o-0 a, o u a, a .� c o- c o a� a' *' v °'a a 3 c c v °r' u c N �Y J Q C ,� o a� u m u a, i+ ++ m E E 'j+ E o C y 3 a, = c N �. a) c m ++ '° E v E C E_ a=i 3 v m o c O au °' ° a, v a� o E c c E c v a, v a c c o o s .� ai 0 CU p '—° N rn c v v M E cm v c 3 y of . ' W V c '� w °J *' O u +' E° > M 0 3 > w O o= O of o u 3 O m+ v v c > rn C= a) = m .� O E ° v u a) *, 3 ° t aJ o_ y *' o a+ o m a E ° co v m N Y E° > ^ ai of c m v> rn— E E a—�,' m o *' a> a o w m v v - 3 = c > ai E m au ( .� u 'o '.c '� a, c a) M V as -0 c 3 c '� a aui m ro a) 3 p` w 0 w O1 o p v o o .X p ra o m t u a, o 0 0 N H O u rn O' n 3 Q to 2 a O_ u W 01 E 2 +� cu a 2 ri n n n tri rr1 nr1 rv1 N m 0 r-i } OC Q H rW P� D V W W O O c i G G1 Ol � N N CW L c O .w O1 7 7 7 C C C C Z Z O Z O Z 0 CL o w O N m y c 01 V V J V J N J N J d CC C O 01 i+ 0 t v O E u �' O O +O- Y c O f6 , _N O c cu Q O s a c„ ui v c O a`� +' c u� u O o E u -O c c o o E v a c o o v a a 3 ^ a, 2 v o m_ N (U p Im v 3 v} d f0 3 .^ 41 0 N w 3� v^ •� M iJ o C u N 3 2i •y_ v O_ Z O_ Y t u O a N v '� a E' v v L o v u a V ate+ C UI p o f1N0 C E N E V Q C 'O -C N 7~ V d •2 4' O m N N ` .0 IZ Y f6 + 4V fa (0 (m0 -0 m X N a UU vi E Y 3 `c° _ o a o tro o °' ua t o N '� u v G s v o a ON d N Q a Y C *1 Y +'' axi o v IZ d E x O O IV u x v a) m= �a D C Q N N m }I c V fo o Y a {.., fo I6 N 3-0 N L CL Y Y 3 o r C C u o M— C N p w CL M o CLw -0- N o m f6 3 = o �, a N U "0 3 N o v 7 0) =p -o ' LA 7 N N Z M m 41 Y E •� -O v p Q 10 w e fu v_, v c '- v t-0 w �' as_+ o W N O— fli C O Z (0 E C O_ N L v L Y Y u u x w N o° Q- • � 3 � Q a c o +, o o v u 01 0 3 L Y M vi C N Y v o � a ,o = p o d _ a f9 •X a N N v�i 'j m o1 m !O c E d N c Z Q N fro N p E-o c :> Z O W N V Q O> •� �, p N N L 0 N a ' CL u O O 6J Q 3 c Y 1D a a� N 2 -O m r` *' N v y O L Y Y a 2 ri 0 u 3 p v m o N a O m n n OR ri ri ri ri I* rn m O r-I Q H W V W X W O ri o o c v L. a1 Q Q Q Q d c a M Z Z Z �^ Z J o C C N N G1 OA OA m CGo C C O 41 ro d1 ai @ 6 6 v 0 v > @ c c c c c 0 0 ❑ c o O Z Z Z ° Z Z O i/ C O a O a w a, +. ° u v, J u J V) LZ ro y J F J 16, LA a) o a M d �� = O � v 0 @ � _0c t o' -� m S C p > M M p C N M Goo 'O a t c E c 'uc v •u N .cn a .O r @cQ @ a) xO E vce OEv E.-p _ MO p�Ep M @ a m p d o .S a E >o 0 a) ." E o C1 E 0 ^ ai Q 0 E E❑ rt� W >_ E Ou aci u E O O a) 3 0) 3 c° — j M Z m ai Q .E T i- a' tco 3 E R y _a v 0) Te v- c c C c O@ 0 O _ E O" Q C - @ ro ro c Y C 7 0 c 4+ M "a E a) N N@ y> aJ a) = E C O Y na @ -c a M M O 0 w f= 0 = Y= ,? O p E E O O O C ar => E@ 0t ro-0 a) L a) 01 N O ._- -c 2°vO O 3 •OY�ucC Q .E E@Ov E ¢ a 4R O E EaV o w >.X 3v_0 Z+Er c m❑0, H Y mE a) v ) o + O i CQ@ � O � MO ° t` p U EC W v y ' Q `1 O 10 '�a@c O a) G jc JMoc @_@ vi y E E c Eo CL w E T 3 u 2 '^ - G N 2 Y O E a1 c 'E M Y m u E .E u u Ol 2 01 E Z o r1s '° CL >, u Z aui E a� p p ar u rLo M y ar = ,� @ Z c Q y s 0�@� •. J 0 C V ECL - O X aJ > +� t O ro J 0 m a a_0 'i n_ Q a) N O 3 W 2 Q O w 01 C1 ri N v v v a v ih m 0 r4 O c �. O a a a o� a z z z z V) Jc N 7 Cal L C O 61 a`6i v v v N f! v c v c a) c v c CD c O Z O Z O z O Z O Z 0 IL o O a+ u C p1 V v) J to J in J v) J U U a! J W C O Ol +� to y h O a) O O C > c v Z n3 _ a`� Q c c °1 Q �_ > > C z a! m e '� p v ^ v a O o u +Z c 0) n3 O y •`— O v 0 Q O a7 ++ -p Y �9 u J C -O Y p p a) ++ d rn "a c_ v m CO Q E 3 p Cl) f9 7 ' Q Q) u m v C _ c �' ai U O y �o �a U u t of ,` •0 a) O 'v a-. -0 O N h N w `J % f0 LL ate-. C O Q V ate,, U aJ a1 a1 a) 'O +-' N rO C p u p m 0- •� v y a`7i - C v Q C S p O c 0 O Q a 3 E v, O N Y z 'c Q 0 u +� c c co `^ > =' u N O LJ.c x 'o N a, 0 .v o a, v 3 LU a, a) o— a z o ° y a-0 0 U c c c� +� c `° � c m Go ) 0 g Q (a C `� �; a:i �_0 C C Q a7 +' .0 in y C 10 C C O ;• E oy v. m �, O` o c aQ, 0 o m c w a, a .� 0 'Z E v °' a, m �o p a, E o °_; o f vi t ., _ >,a u c 7 CL a cu �^ u Q c U L C O 3 aJ CO 7 w> N 2 m Ol' •��—, ++ ai mN ate. W a1 > M p Q-0 '; Q 3 D 'p Z E �' 'v O a1 0 m O a, au +J 0 E c al O a, p a, 5 o a 0, c a1 0 y vi u 4° o 3 a, 't u E E m _� o c u 3 a+ 0 u Y v c �° ai t •`-�° �_ m = o v u m 'U C `> > v >, O fO 0 c p O ro N 0 O 3 O a' 0 5 c 'L n3 En E p c iE m •� �' ^ m v O Q Q ai 3 E a E ._ a+ oC 3 '� 2 u M a a`, 2 Q v E Q �' O a+ V to rn E 3 v° c ._ M LA t0 P V v a v a v ._ N` � O cc oa = a z 4 a w art O W O N cc V v m Ln ro O ,4 `F C 0 v Q Q Q Q Q a O1 Z Z Z Z Z J C a M c 0 M O1 +C� L a a a a a 6 6 6 Q 6 fL `J i1 fL a! fll C a) C fL C a) C N C O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z O c a o w O W � U V U U U c R > y J J J J J Go CC J W L c M +' H r a a v v c c 3 to c a o c fo Q +-- ro Q a 0)>, c a' N a U 0:3 M ai O •m ' ro a- c E 0 "� a ` v G C G + •Q 0c ocoy 5 T c `-' °ro ' a=`3 L a U c •+ +� c E Z 3 V a) c al 0 M a O Q C mr L O C a W Q 2L' +; o a1 L N O� L 7 Q O ,n A7 Ol C O V -0 -0cC a '6 N ~Ma':Wa) O Z— •u� f0 fo T M cr CO V O;A V G 'a o ISr 3 o °o c a`E E o o o c '` �Q c o a' 0 0) of o a3 Q E� aJ N o ` E .0 yf ` a) o '� E C Q a) = O C ++ a+ v Q H v a y c v c c E N 7 O d N Q Z ° Q 'fo m Q '� fO c a ate' o ,,; a o o v 0 3 ° o a o� 6 c� e c u 0° a, o fO a 0 0 3 c 0 c o� o_ a •°' W a O O E> d 4- c 3 fll c OC c t qJ 6J O ro V 'u c— 'U N O c v a _ +�-+ W 0 G 0 G 3 N d a C fo vi c O Y Y O fO O > fC M Y +' y +� O > w G U ,A c > ,e I.c 01 ca O- -P a 'C M Q �+ c fo !Z v C •O f0 E f° c 0 O E p •c O N '^ ,m 9 h v 4 c ,n C Q C !Z C C N 7 G C N 7 y C E O 0 to E E Q E ro '� Q V Ol V�` 6J u O O 7 •O tJ al N E u O u-i¢ E a ° 7 u .� u TEL o O .E v o ,i Q a c N a E a v oo CA M !'� 1•'� M ►] a: u f'f'1 0 ,4 290 INTRODUCTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND This Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) examines the potential effects of PLAN Hermosa (proposed project). The term "proposed project," as used in this EIR, refers to PLAN Hermosa (SCH No. 2015081009), which includes the implementation of a citywide General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is described in detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, and included as Appendix A. The project background and the legal basis for preparing a program EIR are described below. 2.0.2 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND This EIR considers the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the City of Hermosa Beach's General Plan and Local Coastal Program (PLAN Hermosa; proposed project). GENERAL PLAN State law (California Government Code Section 65300) requires that each California city and county adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan to guide the physical development of the county or city. The following elements are required to be addressed as part of the general plan: • Land Use 0 Circulation • Housing • Conservation • Open Space 0 Noise • Safety The City's current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1979, and the accompanying Coastal Land Use Plan was certified in 1980. The City's Housing Element, which is also part of the General Plan, was last updated in 2013 and has been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development through 2021; therefore, it is not part of the proposed project. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM To ensure maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas, the Coastal Act directs each local government in the Coastal Zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) consistent with Section 30501 of the California Coastal Act, in consultation with the Coastal Commission and with public participation. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2003 General Plan Guidelines suggest integration of the general plan and the local coastal program into a "coherent and internally consistent local general plan." As such, the City of Hermosa Beach has decided to update both the General Plan and the LCP together as an integrated document. The General Plan and LCP update addresses land use; mobility; parks, recreation, and open space; coastal access; coastal hazards; water quality; air quality and climate change; noise; and other issues that are important to the community. The LCP addresses portions of Hermosa Beach located in the Coastal Zone and consists of two parts: • A Coastal Land Use Plan, which is presented as a component of the General Plan; and • A Local Implementation Plan, which is presented as a component of the Municipal Code. The Coastal Zone boundary is defined by the California Coastal Act as "extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea" (Public Resources Code Section 30103). The Coastal Zone in the city spans the entire length of the city from north to south and extends from the mean high tide line inland to roughly Ardmore Avenue with two exclusions —the area from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive between Longfellow Avenue and 31 st Place, and the area east City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION of Park Avenue or Loma Drive between 25th Street and 1 bth Street. Figure 3.0-2 (Hermosa Beach Corporate Boundary) shows the extent of the Coastal Zone in the city. In order to achieve certification from the Coastal Commission and attain local control over the issuance of Coastal Development Permits, Hermosa Beach must update the Coastal Land Use Plan and prepare and adopt a Local Implementation Plan that collectively consider and address emerging coastal issues such as beach management, parking, water quality, sea level rise, and climate change. 2.0.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/DEFINITION OF THE BASELINE AND EIR ASSUMPTIONS According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15125, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the project vicinity to provide the "baseline condition" against which project -related impacts are compared. Normally the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the PLAN Hermosa EIR was published on August 7, 2015, and a public scoping meeting was held on August 18, 2015 (see Appendix B-1). Table 2.0-1 (Summary of NOP Comments) summarizes the NOP comment letters received (see Appendix B-2 for full comment letters). TABLE 2.0-1 SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENTS Commenter Date of Comment Summary of Comments Scott Morgan, Acting Director August 6, 2015 The letter was sent to responsible agencies and requested their Governor's Office of Planning comment on the NOR and Research (OPR) Jim Lissner, Hermosa Beach September 8, 2015 The commenter includes statistics for various crimes and states Resident that they are increasing in Hermosa Beach and that crime rates are higher than in Manhattan Beach. Additionally, the commenter states that neighborhoods with more alcohol outlets tend to experience more violence and injury. Further, the commenter is concerned that Hermosa Beach's move toward requiring fewer on -site parking spaces for downtown restaurants will permit greater outlet density and bring increased crime. Adriana Raza, Customer Service September 8, 2015 Will -serve letter stating that the County will be able to Specialist, Facilities Planning accommodate the increase in population associated with the Department General Plan update. The commenter discusses the wastewater Sanitation Districts of Los conveyance system (i.e., how much waste the conveyance Angeles County system can accommodate). The commenter states that no -mown-efirierrcies-exist-inthe-districts=facilities— that -serve the - city. The commenter further states that the district will provide wastewater service up to the levels that are legally permitted; however, the letter does not serve as a guarantee of wastewater service. Kevin Johnson, Acting Chief, August 25, 2015 The commenter states that statutory responsibilities of the Los Forestry Division Prevention Angeles County Fire Department include erosion control, Services Bureau watershed management, rare and endangered species, Los Angeles County Fire vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Department Zones or Fire Zone 4, archaeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. The commenter states that potential impacts to these issue areas should be addressed. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 2.0-2 2.0 INTRODUCTION Commenter Date of Comment Summary of Comments Ping Chang, Program Manager September 8, 2015 The commenting agency states that they review environmental II, Land Use and Environmental documents for consistency with the adopted Regional Planning Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Southern California Association (RTP/SCS) (2012). The commenter also states that the goals in of Governments the RTP/SCS may be pertinent to the project and should be reviewed. Strategies to achieve those goals are included in the SCS chapter. Dianna Watson, IGR/CEQA September 3, 2015 The commenter states that modifications made to Pacific Coast Branch Chief Highway will require a permit from Caltrans. The commenter California Department of also states that the traffic impact analysis (TIA) associated with Transportation (Caltrans), the project should evaluate existing and long-term impacts of District 7 future development plans on the roadway system as well as active transportation facilities in the planning area and adjacent jurisdictions. The TIA should also include an evaluation of potential traffic impacts to the regional transportation system including Interstate 405, as it provides access to the city via the Artesia interchange. Ken Chiang, Utilities Engineer, August 10, 2015 The project site includes active railroad tracks over which the Safety and Enforcement Division CPUC has jurisdiction. The commenter recommends mitigation California Public Utilities measures to reduce potential impacts associated with new Commission (CPUC) development. Alan Benson, Resident August 18, 2015 The commenter requests that the City address an increase in alcohol outlet density and the correlation with the increase in the rate of violent crime and what changes to the General Plan could address these in the future. The commenter includes a report that examines the relationship between alcohol outlet densi b community and alcohol -related harms. Ian MacMillan, Planning and August 13, 2015 The commenter suggests that any potential adverse air quality Rules Manager - South Coast impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all Air Quali Mana ement District air pollutant sources related to the • roject be analyzed. Jeff Duclos, Resident August 18, 2015 The commenter discusses concerns over lack of discussion of carbon neutrality and potential changes to land use/livable streets in the EIR. Also would like to look to the future, for a 20-year model instead of focusing on existing standards —as future residents will have different ideals from current residents. The commenter identified concerns over the planned residential development new units projected between 2015 and 2040. The commenter thinks that such projected growth is impossible to accommodate, "the housing stock does not exist." Dency Nelson, Resident August 18, 2015 The commenter wants the City to review reports about sea level rise and its effects on Hermosa Beach. George Schmeltzer, Resident August 18, 2015 The commenter asks if this EIR will prevent the need to do future EIRs in the future. The commenter expresses concern about other large development projects being covered under the EIR. The commenter asks what the term "alternative" means, and why the project is a project under CEQA. The commenter then asks if the EIR would allow a 300 net housing unit increase, and where that would take place. Further, the commenter discusses the importance of livable streets in Hermosa Beach and reaulatino building height. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 2.0-3 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 INTRODUCTION Commenter Date of Comment Summag of Comments Justin Massey, Resident August 18, 2015 The commenter is glad that a programmatic EIR was chosen so that the City can tier off it in the future. The commenter thinks that the alternatives are very important to discuss and analyze. The commenter then says he is worried about the viewshed from various parts of the city, air and water pollution, how the plan will contribute to climate change, and mobility and transportation. The commenter says he doesn't just want to see raw numbers on walkability/mobility but is concerned with how it will affect the average community member walking down the street. The commenter says that the City must think about the quality of life of residents as well as the environment. Finally, the commenter wants to extend the period of comment beyond 45 days. Source: Data compiled by Michael Baker International, 2015 For analytical purposes, impacts associated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa are derived from the existing environmental setting in 2015. This baseline year (2015) is used throughout this EIR to determine impacts. Evaluations in this EIR are based on reasonable assumptions of development activity anticipated to occur over the next 25 years in the planning area, which consists of the existing city boundaries. To determine reasonable assumptions for the amount of new residential, commercial, and population growth, the City assumed a range of factors, including the physical capacity of the PLAN Hermosa Land Use Map, the projected growth assumed in the city and the region, specific policy direction in PLAN Hermosa, and socioeconomic trends. This analysis includes forecasts of the number of new residences, amount of new employment, and increase in population anticipated to occur under PLAN Hermosa. This EIR presents a conservative scenario based on the potential development from 2015 through 2040. As a practical matter, as illustrated under the current General Plan, actual development in any city or county is typically less than the theoretical limit of development. This is a result of market forces, as well as building and zoning standards when applied to specific sites, which often results in the construction of less than the maximum allowable development. This EIR also evaluates the physical environmental impacts of the ;I plementation of PLAN Hermosa policy provisions. 2.0.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This EIR evaluates the impacts of PLAN Hermosa. It is a program EIR, as described in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. [14 CCR 15000 et seq.). According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a), a state or local agency should prepare a program EIR, rather than a project EIR, when the lead agency proposes the following: • A series of related actions that are linked geographically; • Logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or • Individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 2.0-4 2.0 INTRODUCTION A program EIR "may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related ... in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[a][3]). This program EIR considers a series of actions related to implementation of PLAN Hermosa. As a program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effect of PLAN Hermosa. The analyses in this EIR do not examine the effects of site -specific projects that may occur under this plan in the future. The nature of general plans is such that many proposed policies are intended to be general, with details to be worked out during implementation. This EIR does, however, quantify impacts related to transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and other topics, making reasonable assumptions as to the amount, type, and character of land use change anticipated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa. TIERING AND STREAMLINING The City will make use of existing streamlining provided by CEQA, emerging streamlining techniques, such as those related to implementation of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21155), and other streamlining techniques that may become available in the future. The City has invested substantial resources in PLAN Hermosa and its EIR, and wishes to promote fiscally prudent use of this EIR, once it is certified, to accommodate development consistent with PLAN Hermosa. Tiering refers to a multilevel approach to preparing environmental documents set forth in PRC Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. This program EIR's analysis is considered the first tier of environmental review upon which future, project -specific CEQA documents can build, as necessary. Environmental analysis for future projects consistent with PLAN Hermosa can be streamlined to allow subsequent documents to focus on new or site -specific impacts (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168[d] and 15183). These provisions of CEQA allow a lead agency to narrow the focus of project -level analysis to effects upon the environment that are peculiar to the parcel or project. The Public Resources Code also limits the effects that can be considered peculiar in project -level analysis under the program EIR. Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that where a first -tier EIR has "adequately addressed" the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second - and/or third -tier documents. According to Section 15152(f) (3), significant effects identified in a first -tier EIR are adequately addressed, for purposes of later approvals, if the lead agency determines that such effects have been either: • Mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior [EIR] and findings adopted in connection with that prior [EIR]; or • Examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR] to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site -specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project. The Public Resources Code provides streamlining coverage to the City of Hermosa Beach and other public agencies that have authority to implement PLAN Hermosa. Public agencies can use uniformly applied policies or standards to mitigate effects of future projects, avoiding the need to analyze these effects, unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis (PRC Section 21083.3[d]). For this reason, this EIR includes references to PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions, where appropriate, to address environmental impacts. Future CEQA City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-5 2.0 INTRODUCTION documents can reference the same PLAN Hermosa policies and actions, where appropriate, to demonstrate less than significant impacts. The City may consider specific plans, area plans, corridor plans, downtown core area plans, or other documents to implement PLAN Hermosa in a smaller geographic area of the city. The City acknowledges and intends to make best use of the advantages to the programmatic approach to environmental analysis and reporting in this EIR. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b): Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: 1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action; 2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis; 3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations; 4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; and 5) Allow reduction in paperwork. 2.0.5 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR AND LEAD AGENCY CONTACT City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department (Planning Division) 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 92054 The public review and comment period is 70 days from October 26, 2016 through January 5, 2017. Written public comments on the Draft EIR must be received no later than 6:00 PM on January 5, 2017. Written comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to: Ken Robertson City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department (Planning Division) 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 92054 generalplan@hermosabch.orq Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period. The City Council will review and consider the Final EIR prior to their decision to approve, revise, or reject the proposed project. 2.0.6 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR As lead agency, the City determined that this Draft EIR will address the following technical issue areas: • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise and Vibration • Population and Housing • Public Services, Community Facilities, and Utilities • Transportation PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 2.0-6 2.0 INTRODUCTION The specific topics evaluated are described in each of the resource sections presented in Chapter 4.0. 2.0.7 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT This report includes the following principal parts: Executive Summary, Project Description, Environmental Analysis (Impacts and Mitigation Measures), Other CEQA-Required Considerations, Alternatives, Abbreviations, Report Preparers, and Appendices. • Executive Summary (Chapter 1.0) presents an overview of the results and conclusions of the environmental evaluation. This chapter identifies impacts of the proposed project and available mitigation measures. • Project Description (Chapter 3.0) describes the location of the project, existing conditions in the planning area, and the nature and location of specific elements of the proposed project. • Environmental Analysis (Chapter 4.0) includes a topic -by -topic analysis of impacts that would or may result from implementation of the proposed project or alternatives. The analysis is organized into 14 resource sections, each of which is organized into two major subsections: Environmental Setting and Regulatory Setting (a summary of existing conditions), and Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures subsection also describes cumulative impacts and mitigation measures. Appendix C, the PLAN Hermosa Technical Background Report, provides additional detail regarding the environmental and regulatory setting for each resource section. • Other CEQA-Required Considerations (Chapter 5.0) discusses issues required by CEQA: unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible environmental changes, growth inducement, and a summary of cumulative impacts. • Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Chapter 6.0) includes a description of the project alternatives. CEQA requires an EIR to provide adequate information for decision -makers to make a reasonable choice between alternatives based on the environmental aspects of the proposed project and alternatives. The impacts of the alternatives are qualitatively compared to those of the proposed project. This chapter also identifies the environmentally superior alternative. • Report Preparers (Chapter 7.0) includes a list of the preparers of the EIR. • The Appendices contain a number of reference items providing support and documentation of the analyses performed for this report. They are included on a CD inserted in the back cover of the EIR. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 2.0-7 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 INTRODUCTION This page intentionally left blank. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-8 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3,.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0.1 REGIONAL SETTING Hermosa Beach is located in southwest Los Angeles County and encompasses 1.4 square miles, with 1.8 miles of coastline along Santa Monica Bay. Manhattan Beach borders Hermosa Beach to the north and northeast, and Redondo Beach is located to the south and east (see Figure 3.0-1, Regional Location Map). Pacific Coast Highway runs north/south through the entirety of Hermosa Beach. Roughly half of the city is located within the Coastal Zone. FIGURE 3.0-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP malibu I Santar monica, I los an manhattan beach city of hermosa beach To redondo beach Palos verdes ]� estates `J long beach 3.0.2 HERMOSA BEACH The proposed project area, shown in Figure 3.0-2 (Hermosa Beach Corporate Boundary), includes the entire corporate limits of the City of Hermosa Beach and the City's Coastal Zone. Existing land uses in the city include residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and open space as shown in Figure 3.0-3 (Hermosa Beach Existing Land Uses) and Table 3.0-1 (Hermosa Beach Existing Land Uses). Residential uses comprise over 67 percent of the city's land area, with approximately 10,000 housing units encompassing 455 acres of the city. Residential uses include single-family residential, multi -family, mobile homes, and mixed -use property (with both residential and commercial). Single-family land uses are found throughout the city, with neighborhoods in the northeast, east, and southeast that are predominantly single-family uses. Multi -family housing units are predominantly found in the southwest area of Hermosa Beach, with additional multi -family housing found in the northwest and southeast portions of the city. The northwest portion of the city and The Strand have a mix of single-family and multi -family housing options. There are two mobile home areas —one located north of Pier Avenue, between Loma Drive and Valley Drive, which is a resident -owned park, and the other along 10th Street between Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, which also serves recreational vehicles. Existing commercial uses comprise approximately 7 percent of the city's total land area including retail, restaurant, office, and other uses that provide goods or services. These uses can be found primarily along the city's corridors and in Downtown, with pockets of small-scale commercial City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION found in residential neighborhoods. Commercial uses along Hermosa Avenue or Manhattan Avenue primarily consist of restaurants, stores, and services to serve the neighborhood and nearby beachgoers. Light industrial or manufacturing uses in Hermosa Beach account for approximately 4 percent of the city's total land area and are generally located in a 4-acre industrial area near Cypress Avenue, including light manufacturing, warehouses, construction supply, surfboard manufacturing, auto shops, and air conditioning and heating manufacturing uses. FIGURE 3.0-2 HERMOSA BEACH CORPORATE BOUNDARY l L� Czan, sr � 1 jR 18m Si Iti 4 t161hSt `l i 4lh st 1'rer Avd 1 14th St , % I th St I 1 f f 6ih St m F 8!n Si 61h SI ► rj i J PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-2 hermosa beach o _ city limits coastal zone 0 0 400• 80o' N 0" V 2' City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 Al f '01' oil City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 FIGURE 3.0-3 HERMOSA BEACH EXISTING LAND USES oil .0 Ou .►;�, VfA ■ s lr i r r 3.0-3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......•••••• Coastal Zone Boundary Land Use Designations Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks _ General Office - Commercial and Services ® Facilities Education Industrial j,jIllgi Transportallon, Gommunleatlons, and Utilities - Mixed Commerclal and Industrial - Mixed Reaidential and Commercial r%L Open Space and Ract"Von Vacant Vol tI& wool �l Val01 �. r r ry a �� ;r` xA __, Is lost sk Lest upSVed August, gOfl •� PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Institutional land uses account for 147 acres or 22 percent of the total land area. Institutional land uses include schools, government -owned facilities, parks, the beach and open space, and essential operations areas such as parking, utility buildings, the City maintenance yard and other facilities, or utility easements. TABLE 3.0-1 HERMOSA BEACH EXISTING LAND USES Number of Use Parcels 1 Total Acres Percentage of Land Area Residential Uses Single -Family 3,261 263.0 39.1% Multi -Family 1,898 186.3 27.6% Mobile Homes 3 4.6 0.7% Mixed Residential and Commercial 17 1.5 0.2% Residential Subtotal 5,179 455.4 67.6% Commercial and Light Industrial Uses Commercial and Services 274 57.6 8.5% General Office 40 7.9 1.1% Industrial 26 4.1 0.6% Mixed Commercial and Industrial 1 0.2 <0.1% Commercial and Industrial Subtotal 341 69.8 10.2% Institutional and Other Uses City Facilities 46 19.6 2.9% Education 9 16.7 2.4% Open Space and Recreation 52 104.5 15.5% Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 8 4.2 0.6% Vacant 33 2.6 0.4% Institutional and Other Uses Subtotal 148 147.6 21.8% -Total- - 5,668- ---672..8- 100% Source: City of Hermosa Beach 2014 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-4 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires that a project's environmental impact report (EIR) include a written statement of objectives that should include the underlying purpose of the project. The priorities underscored in PLAN Hermosa identified through the community outreach process form the basis of the project objectives. 1) Preserve the city's small beach town character through policies and design standards that maintain buildings at an appropriate scale and size with existing ones and recognize the unique features of the city's eclectic residential neighborhoods. 2) Enhance and support a strong, diverse, and vibrant local economy through policies that stimulate sustainable businesses and jobs, enhance safe and beautiful commercial corridors, articulate clear and consistent standards for new businesses, and provide convenient services to residents, employees, and visitors. 3) Promote healthy and active lifestyles through land use and transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian, transit, and bike safety and access to a variety of destinations in the city. 4) Provide a safe and clean natural environment —including clean air and water —and stewardship of our ocean resources, open space, and other natural resources. 5) Achieve a low carbon future through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by reducing fuel consumption, diverting solid waste from landfills, conserving water and improving the efficiency of energy use and utilizing renewable energy sources. 3.0.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The project consists of two components: the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, collectively referred to as PLAN Hermosa. PLAN Hermosa's stated purpose is to guide development in the city for the next 25 years by balancing quality of life, economic prosperity, and environmental sustainability. PLAN Hermosa defines long-term community goals, decision - making policies, and implementation actions. PLAN Hermosa establishes an overall development capacity for the city and represents the City's policy for determining appropriate physical development and character. Any decision by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with PLAN Hermosa. An action, program, or project would be considered consistent if, considering all of its aspects, it would further the goals and policies set forth in PLAN Hermosa and not obstruct their attainment. PLAN Hermosa includes the subject matter required for the seven state -required elements, as well as subjects required for the Coastal Land Use Plan. • Community Governance • Parks + Open Space • Land Use + Design 0 Public Safety • Mobility a Infrastructure • Sustainability + Conservation PLAN Hermosa also includes a Vision Statement, an Introduction chapter, and an Implementation Plan that presents actions needed to achieve the vision. The City's Housing Element, which is also part of the General Plan, was last updated in 2013 and has been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development through 2021; therefore, it is not part of the proposed project. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-5 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Community Governance Element The Community Governance Element serves as the introduction to PLAN Hermosa. This element details the leadership, decision -making process, development requirements, and regional coordination necessary to achieve the proposed plan's objectives through goals, policies, and actions. This element describes the system of governance and provides goals and policies for Hermosa Beach. In addition, the element identifies ways to continue community involvement and investment, while ensuring decision -making and leadership are conducted in an ethical, transparent, and innovative manner that reflects community values. Land Use + Design Element The Land Use + Design Element guides future development in Hermosa Beach; identifies the character -defining features of each neighborhood, corridor, or district; and provides policy guidance that supports the intended character of each area. The element establishes land use designations that provide direction to each individual property owner regarding allowed uses and densities. More specifically, the Land Use + Design Element: • Defines a realistic long-term vision for the built form of Hermosa Beach through 2040. • Expresses the desires of Hermosa Beach residents regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural, and environmental character of the community. • Serves as a comprehensive guide for making decisions about land use, urban design, economic development, and other related topics, such as public facilities and services and parks and open space. • Serves as the City's framework for land use and development decisions and provides the legal foundation for zoning, subdivisions, development plans, and facility plans. The PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations Diagram (Figure 3.0-4) establishes the general pattern of uses in the city and identifies minimum and maximum permitted land use densities and intensities. These parameters can be used to identify the anticipated level of development in the city between 2015 and 2040. As the density and intensity standards for each land use designation are applied to future development projects and land use decisions, properties will gradually transition from one use to another, and land uses and intensities will gradually shift to align with the intent of PLAN Hermosa. Table 3.0-2 (PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations) identifies the land use designations and allowable densities. Table 3.0-3 (PLAN Hermosa Residential Development Projections) identifies anticipated residential land use changes that would occur between 2015 and 2040 with implementation of PLAN Hermosa, while Table 3.0-4 (PLAN Hermosa Nonresidential Development Projections) identifies corresponding changes for nonresidential uses in the city. These projections were calculated based on specific trends in the city, including: • Loss of housing units - Through demolition and reconstruction as single-family homes, the city experienced a decrease in the overall number of housing units from 10,162 to 10,110 between 2010 and 2015. This is consistent with a recent local trend in which properties with multi -family units are demolished and replaced with a single-family unit. This trend may be expected to continue in the near term. • Growing size of households - Between 2008 and 2012, the city observed an increase in average household size from 2.00 to 2.08. This number is indicative of a growing number of families in Hermosa Beach, which affects the ratio of adult residents and subsequently the trip generation of family versus nonfamily households. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 3.0-6 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION While the residential land use designations have the ability to accommodate an additional 440 total residential units, only a portion of those parcels are likely to redevelop. The City's residential program estimates that approximately 300 residential units may be added in Hermosa Beach over the next 25 years based on an analysis of vacant and underutilized parcels. In addition, Hermosa Beach could accommodate an additional 630,400 square feet of nonresidential development between 2015 and 2040 as shown in the tables below. TABLE 3.0-2 PLAN HERMOSA LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Land Use Designation Definition Density/Intensity Low Density Residential Single-family residential (attached or detached) 2.0-13.0 DU/AC Medium Density Residential Single-family residential and small-scale multi -family residential 13.1-25.0 DU/AC (duplex, triplex, condominium) High Density Residential g y Medium (8-20 unit buildings) and large-scale (20+ unit buildings) 25.1-33.0 DU/AC multi -family residential Mobile Home Mobile home parks, where two or more lots are rented or leased to accommodate mobile homes for human habitation 2 0-13.0 DU/AC Neighborhood g Convenience stores, markets, eateries, laundromats, or similar uses 0.5-1.0 FAR to primarily serve local walk-in traffic Community Locally oriented uses including retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services 0.5-1.25 FAR Coastal -related uses such as beach/bike rentals, restaurants, snack Recreational shops, retail. lodging accommodations, entertainment, and similar 1.0-1.75 FAR uses community or regionally oriented commercial uses with GatewayLower-floor upper -floor high -visitor office or hotel uses 1.0-2.0 FAR Service Home improvement stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships, and light automotive service stations 0.25-0.5 FAR Light Industrial g Production uses for light manufacturing, creative art, or design 0.25-1.0 FAR services with professional office as an allowed accessory use Public FacilityCivic-related offices, community centers, operational facilities, and 0.10-1.0 FAR educationaVinstitutional facilities Open 5 Space P p Passive and active park, recreational, open space uses, and 0.0-0.5 FAR educational/institutional facilities Beach Coastal -related recreational activities and essential public facilities (lifeguard and restrooms) 0.0-0.05 FAR DU/AC = dwelling units per acre; FAR = floor area ratio Italicized designations indicate the new or altered land use designations introduced through PLAN Hermosa. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-7 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report :t n PRn IFPT nFCr'RiPTinw FIGURE 3.0-4 PLAN HERMOSA LAND USE DESIGNATIONS DIAGRAM 1 i hermosa beach land use designations Ape Tc 1-0 Cn 1 .11 1 s �y1n 5t 9�: - ` ,24 low density medium density high density mobile home l w sr neighborhood 71st�1 E j • ; �, ` E i community 4 i $ ■ recreational ` 19th 191h St i ""°�`� ■ gateway 18th st ► ■service light industrial 14t4 St ' m ■ �1iiF 1 facility public lotn sr .c ■ open space sth - u" attest beach 1 ■ A ®milli Ij Gilr gt , ' 5ih St Ira S + i .m _ j city limits L J coastal zone 2nr. St, I PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report -- - 0 400• 800 IV t � -- �7 t' Z" 3.0-8 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE 3.0-3 PLAN HERMOSA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Land Use Designation Acres Existing Units (2015) New Units (2015-2040) Total Units (2040) Low Density Residential 240 3,214 20 3,234 Medium Density Residential 198 2,593 150 2,743 High Density Residential 100 4,085 100 4,185 Neighborhood Commercial 3 50 30 80 Community Commercial 38 104 — 104 Recreational Commercial 7 36 — 36 Gateway Commercial 24 11 — 11 Service Commercial 5 12 — 12 Light Industrial 6 4 — 4 Total 621 10,109 300 10,409 Note: This information is based on growth forecasts provided in the City's letter with the subject: Hermosa Beach Response to SCAG's Integrated Growth Forecast to the Southern California Association of Governments. See Appendix A. TABLE 3.0-4 PLAN HERMOSA NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Land Use Designation Acres Existing Building Sq. Ft. (2015) New Building Sq. Ft. (2015-2040) Total Building Sq. Ft. (2040) Neighborhood Commercial 3 93,900 8,800 102,700 Community Commercial 38 976,200 154,500 1,130,700 Recreational Commercial 7 226,300 176,500 402,800 Gateway Commercial 24 595,200 231,700 826,900 Service Commercial 5 82,800 22,100 104,900 Light Industrial 6 132,000 36,800 168,800 Total 83 2,106,400 630,400 2,736,800 Note: This information is based on growth forecasts provided in the City's letter with the subject: Hermosa Beach Response to SCAG's Integrated Growth Forecast to the Southern California Association of Governments. See Appendix A. Goals presented in the Land Use + Design Element include the following: • Livable Urban Pattern - Create a sustainable urban form and land use pattern that supports a robust and resilient economy and high quality of life for residents. • Complete and Diverse Neighborhoods - Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities, and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. • Unique and Vibrant Districts - A series of unique, destination -oriented districts throughout Hermosa Beach. ■ Connected and Walkable Corridors - A variety of corridors throughout the city provide opportunities for shopping, recreation, commerce, employment, and circulation. • Quality Urban Design - Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. • Public Realm and Pedestrian -Scale Design -A pedestrian -focused urban form that creates visual interest and a comfortable outdoor environment. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-9 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Educational and Community Facilities - Adequate space and appropriate integration of community and school facilities that support physical activity, civic life, and social connections for residents of all ages and interests. • Accommodations in the Coastal Zone - A range of coastal -dependent and visitor -serving uses available to serve a variety of income ranges and amenity desires. • Space for Renewable Energy - Local energy independence through renewable energy generation. • Celebrated Examples of the City's Rich History- A strong sense of cultural and architectural heritage. • A Vibrant Artistic Community - A proud and visible identity as an arts and cultural community. • Venues and Space for Artistic Expression - A mix of cultural facilities that support and encourage the community's vibrant range of art creation and presentation. Each goal is supported by policies in the Land Use + Design Element and actions in the Implementation Plan describing how the goals will be achieved. The element's key implementation action is an update to the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Implementation Plan. Character areas —split into neighborhoods, corridors, and districts and shown in Figure 3.0-5 (Character Areas) —have been defined and described to highlight the unique features or characteristics of the different areas of Hermosa Beach. Each character area description includes the intended future vision and proposed guidelines to help maintain, enhance, or transform the building form and public realm of each area. A summary of each area is included in Table 3.0-5 (Character Areas and Future Visions). PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 3.0-10 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE 3.0-5 CHARACTER AREAS AND FUTURE VISIONS Character Area Future Vision North End To achieve the intent, buildings should preserve form and scale and maintain neighborhood connectivity and access to nearby commercial services. Hermosa View To achieve the intent, buildings should preserve form, orientation, or scale and retain the unique streetscape with wide parkways and uninterrupted sidewalks. Walk Street To achieve the intent, the City should maintain the high quality pedestrian connections through the walk streets and retain the form, scale, and orientation of buildings in this area. Sand Section To achieve the intent, the City should enhance multimodal connectivity and access while opreserving the building form, scale, and orientation in this neighborhood. Valley To achieve the intent, the City should improve key pedestrian thoroughfares to enhance = connectivity and access while preserving the single-family development pattern of this area. z Herondo To achieve the intent, the City should preserve the scale and building form of this neighborhood and maintain connections and access to nearby amenities. Greenbelt To achieve the intent, the City should maintain the building scale and form of this neighborhood, while enhancing access to local neighborhood -serving commercial uses. Hermosa Hills The intent is to improve key pedestrian thoroughfares to enhance connectivity and access while preserving the single-family development pattern of this area. Eastside To achieve the intent, buildings should preserve form, orientation, and scale and retain the quiet nature and unique streetscape of this area. Downtown To achieve the intent, buildings should enhance form and orientation and maintain the pedestrian realm along Pier Avenue while transforming the realm on Hermosa Avenue. U .0 Civic Center To achieve the intent, buildings should transform the orientation and design in the Civic oCenter, while enhancing the streetscape and circulation of all modes and users. Cypress To achieve the intent, buildings should transform both the design and orientation as well as the public realm and streetscape within the Cypress area. Aviation To achieve the intent, buildings should transform building design, form, and orientation while enhancing the streetscape and access for pedestrians and bicycles in this area. Pacific Coast To achieve the intent, the City should enhance building design and form, and transform Highway streetscapes and gateways to serve pedestrians and improve vehicular circulation. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-11 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-5 CHARACTER AREAS PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report �ArlNoe es'�B�wd 3.0-12 hermosa beach character areas ■ north end 4 a . hermosa view 0 r ■ walk street rn c sand section valley ■ herondo ■ greenbelt hermosa hills ■ eastside ■d downtown c v ■ civic center cypress L. C aviation Qpacific coast highway e _ } city limits ocoastal zone in o 400' soo, H I� V�� City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Mobility Element The Mobility Element identifies the proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and alternative transportation facilities necessary to support a multimodal transportation system. This element is intended to facilitate the movement of people and goods throughout Hermosa Beach by a variety of transportation modes. The element places a balanced emphasis on all modes including: bicycle and pedestrian modes, alternative -fuel vehicle use, and parking management in the Coastal Zone. The Mobility Element outlines a transportation system needed to support the land uses outlined in the Land Use + Design Element and regional growth factors identified in county -wide and region -wide plans. The Mobility Element describes each component of the city's transportation system and presents future enhancements to the system that advance the following goals: • Complete Streets - Complete Streets that serve the diverse functions of mobility, commerce, recreation, and community engagement for all users whether they travel by walking, bicycling, transit, or driving. • Living Streets - A public realm that is safe, comfortable, and convenient for travel via foot, bicycle, transit, and automobile and creates vibrant, people -oriented public spaces that encourage active living. • Streets for Everyone - Public right-of-ways supporting a multimodal and people -oriented transportation system that provides diversity and flexibility on how users choose to be mobile. • Managed Parking - A parking system that meets the parking needs and demand of residents, visitors, and employees in an efficient and cost-effective manner. • Low -Carbon Sustainable Transport- A robust low-cost and low -carbon transportation system that promotes the City's environmental sustainability and stewardship goals in support of social and economic objectives. • Local and Regional Connectivity - A regionally integrated transportation system that provides local and regional connections to regional transit services, bicycle facilities, and other intermodal facilities. • Vision Zero - A transportation system that results in zero transportation -related fatalities and which minimizes injuries. • Efficient Commercial Goods Movement - Facilitates sustainable, effective, and safe movement of goods and commercial vehicles. Each goal is supported by policies in the Mobility Element and actions in the Implementation Plan describing how the goals will be achieved. The key implementation actions for the Mobility Element are organized around goals to improve safety, enhance access, and support greater choice in transportation options. Street Classifications Streets are not equal in function or in their service of different travel modes. The Mobility Element's system of street classifications will inform future roadway improvements and performance measurement for new and reconfigured streets to carry out mobility priorities more effectively and to balance the needs of all travel modes. Definitions of street classifications consider surrounding land uses and designate priority levels for different travel modes within each street type. Combined, the types represent a hierarchical network linked to typical design standards and anticipated traffic levels. For each street type, the Mobility Element provides a definition and design guidelines that illustrate how the street space is divided among roadway, sidewalk, parkway, and other modes. The street classifications outline the rights -of -way required for each arterial and collector street to accommodate vehicle traffic, transit movement, bicycle system implementation, and pedestrian circulation needs. The classifications also provide design guidance, priorities, and requirements for each street type. These are considered general guidelines for street corridors. Each street City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-13 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION classification is defined in Table 3.0-6 (Proposed Transportation Network Descriptions) and locations of each type of facility are illustrated in Figure 3.0-6 (Proposed Street Classifications), Figure 3.0-7 (Proposed Pedestrian Network), Figure 3.0-8 (Proposed Bicycle and Multi -Use Network), Figure 3.0-9 (Proposed Transportation Amenities), and Figure 3.0-10 (Proposed Safe Routes to School Network). Multimodal Transportation System The Mobility Element places a priority on the development of a multimodal transportation system in the city. The current street system comprises three functional systems: arterials, collectors, and local streets with low walking and biking priority. The goals and policies identified in the Mobility Element serve to encourage greater individual choice to move throughout the city by developing multi -use path connections to key destinations in order to reduce auto dependency and improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity. This would serve to decrease traffic, increase mobility and access to jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the Hermosa Beach community's overall health, wellness, and quality of life. Concepts identified in the Mobility Element include redesign of Pacific Coast Highway to improve its local function as a community focal point and gathering place. Potential redesign for the roadway could include wider sidewalks and streetscape improvements such as benches and pedestrian -scale lighting. Enhancing a multimodal transportation system and shifting travel patterns away from the automobile to alternative modes of transportation, including public transit (both regional and local), walking, and biking, would alleviate congestion throughout the city. TABLE 3.0-6 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DESCRIPTIONS Street Type Description Alleyway Provide access to private properties, including parking spaces and garages. Provide connections within and between neighborhoods. Local streets are not intended to serve through vehicular Local Street traffic and are generally one lane in each direction with a lower volume of vehicles. Arterial Carry the majority of vehicles entering, leaving, or traveling through the city. Major and minor arterials are (major + minor) differentiated by the volume of vehicles using the street and width of the ri ht-of-wa . 'Walk Street A street segment designed to exclude vehicular use, for pedestrians and non -motorized transportation. Local Sidewalk Provide contiguous and level walking space primarily on low -volume residential streets. Wide Sidewalk Provide adequate space for a frontage zone, pedestrian zone, and buffer greenspace zone on commercial streets. Priority Sidewalk Facilities essential to providing a safe, accessible, and well-connected pedestrian network. A two-way facility separated from motor vehicles (adjacent to or independent of roadways) for use by pedestrians, Multi -Use Path 'o ers, skaters, and bicyclists. A street segment that functions as a space for multiple users and intermittently as a gathering space, without Shared Roadway delineations for each-mode Bike Lane Provide preferential or exclusive use of a portion of the roadway for bicyclists through striping or markings. Combine bicycle stencils with chevrons placed in the center of the travel lane. Bring awareness to drivers that Sharrows bicycles share the lane and may use the full lane. Allow bicyclists and motorists to share the same travel lanes to facilitate safe and convenient bicycle travel. They Bike Boulevard are low -volume streets o 6mized for bicyclists and pedestrians. A local electric or zero emissions trolley, in coordination with parking facilities, provides enhanced access to the Local Trolley beach and downtown. Electric Vehicle and Electric vehicle and bike parking facilities support the use of alternative modes to key destinations. Bike Parkin Crossing Control Crossing control facilities (stop sign, signal, traffic circle) ensure efficient and safe intersections for all travel modes. Parking District District -based parking helps manage parking supply and more efficiently use space dedicated for parking. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-14 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-6 PROPOSED STREET CLASSIFICATIONS 3.0-15 l l ri I I f-' 0" hermosa beach C alleyway O $ local street N N mlflOf arterial O V 60 major arterial 1 N city limits ccoastal zone 400 800 III 2 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-7 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK 4 1 ~ 1 ?:N) � 0 i a m 14 St i 101h + � < 1 . :> PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 t ] 0" 3.0-16 hermosa beach N m walk street ,} 0 wide sidewalk priority sidewalk N W alocal sidewalk j-atyimas c coastal zone 400' 800' 1 2 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-8 PROPOSED BICYCLE AND MULTI -USE NETWORK 3.0-17 hermosa beach o shared roadway a multi -use path �+ ® or buffered s bike lane N 2 13 bike lane A: V sharrows d bike blvd N 1 R 'j city limits coastal zone 0 a 400' 800 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-9 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES hermosa beach iy 5 9 I t. 1 1 � 'r Arres,a �jvpl k rI 2� st St' �t i t 0 y 1 : — t lbth r 14 St leer eve } 9m l ��l�''`' iR�• 1 . off-street parking r G! ! ktz r * 1ft parking district 4o,ft o ev/nev parking r7 ,r oa ; crossing control Y� ' : L 51 * , o bike parking . n m beach trolley s 5th 5t- �= city limits o L J coastal zone Vp r 400 800 0 1 2 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-18 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-10 PROPOSED SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL NETWORK Mira Costa High School 1 191h St Pal, Hermosa View School It t t l tt 1 � 4 t tom St r Redondo Union High School hermosa beach safe routes to school ■ schools \ safe routes to school network stop signs signals school access points crossing guard locations 4 city limits cL coastal zone PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-19 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sustainability + Conservation The Sustainability + Conservation Element includes goals and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote improved air quality and water quality, and promote energy -efficient green building practices. The element's primary objective is to set Hermosa Beach on a path toward a low -carbon future. The Sustainability + Conservation Element details measures to improve air quality in the city. This element also addresses the use of green building practices to reduce energy use and preserve the environment. Additionally, the elernent addresses the preservation of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources; managed production of resources, such as energy and groundwater; solid waste reduction and recycling; regional geology and soil erosion; provision of beach nourishment programs; and mineral resources. The goals addressing the conservation of natural resources targeting water conservation, energy conservation, green building, air quality, and recycling and solid waste are as follows: • A Low -Carbon (Municipality - Hermosa Beach is a low -carbon municipal organization, reducing greenhouse gas emissions of a rate that meets or exceeds 80% below 2005 levels by 2030, • A Low -Carbon Community - Hermosa Beach is a low -carbon community meeting State greenhouse gas reduction goals by 2040. • Air Quality Improver! - Improved air quality and reduced quantities of air pollution emissions. • Energy Efficient Community - A leader in reducing energy consumption and renewable energy production. • Leaders in Water Conservation - Water conservation practices, recycled water use, and innovative water 'technologies support a low -carbon community. • Low or No Waste to Landfills - Hermosa Beach is a low or zero -waste community with convenient and effective options for recycling, composting, and diverting waste from landfills. • Retained Topsoil and Reduced Erosion - Essential topsoil is retained and erosion is minimized. Each goal is supported by policies in the Sustainability + Conservation Element and actions in the Implementation Plan describing how the goals will be achieved. The element's key implementation actions include a commitment to green building, energy conservation, and renewable energy production to maintain valuable resources over the long term, cut utility Costs for businesses and residents, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Parks + Open Space Element The Parks + Open Space Element includes coastal policies and actions for beach programming, special events, the protection of scenic resources and views, and the preservation of natural habitat and wildlife. The City provides a high rate of parks/open space per resident, more than half of which is sandy beach. However, pork space across the city is not evenly distributed among neighborhoods, especially Those east of Pacific Coost Highvvoy, Sec- Figure 10-11 (Forks clnlci Public Facilities), i he f ollo`,/ing goals are outIi.ned in the Parks + Open Space _I.rner, , First -Class Facilities - First-class, weil-mointained, and sa`e recreational facilities, parks, and open spaces. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised .Draft Environmental Impact .Report August 2017 3.0-20 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Abundant Parks and Open Space - Abundant parks, open space, and recreational facilities to serve the community. • Parks as a Place for Social Interaction - Community parks and facilities encourage social activity and interaction. • Direct and Accessible Routes to Parks - Direct and accessible routes and connections to parks, recreational facilities, and open space. • Enhanced Scenic Views and Vistas - Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained and enhanced. • Superior Access to the Coast -The coast and its recreational facilities are easily accessible from many locations and by multiple transportation modes. • Balanced Management of Beach Amenities - The beach offers high quality recreational opportunities and amenities desired by the community. • Events for Everyone - Balanced level of special events to support community recreation and economic development without restricting coastal access or impacting the community. • Habitats and Wildlife Protected - Coastal and marine habitat resources and wildlife are protected. • Abundant Trees and Green Space - Abundant landscaping, trees, and green space provided throughout the community. Each goal is supported by policies in the Parks + Open Space Element and actions in the Implementation Plan describing how the goals will be achieved. The element's key implementation actions include development of a beach management program and a network of trails. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-21 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3.0-11 PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILTRES 1 hermosa beach parks + public facilities citylimits 355151 � �� m — 0 shaffer ark ~ter — fon9 AS,� —� 'coastal -zone- - valley park { q f ® valley greenbelt 1 •zilh f sea view park © scout parkette l © greenwood park fort lots -of -fun park zarh sr 1 0 edith rodaway park I Q oceanview parkette f to moondust parkette Ise, 4 1s�n s� m city beach, strand, pier lain St ®noble park ® clark stadium m 8th + valley parkette fn St south park P'�"A� 14s sc ardmore park 6 �` m bi-centennial park kay etow parkette 101h St + m seawright sandhill parkette i atn sc erns► m community center + ! skate park 14 61h st 24 , � ® view school 3 1 e sth 51 7 8 60, $j ® valley school i�:17 9 - ® north school a m prospect ave building t ---�2'd sr 10 1 j i i80.1 — 400' 800, 2' PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 3.0-22 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Safety Element The Public Safety Element establishes goals and policies that through their implementation would protect the community from risk associated with known natural and man-made hazards (e.g., geologic, flood, fire, and hazardous materials) and sets standards for emergency preparedness. The element places specific focus on coastal hazards that would be made more severe with anticipated sea level rise. This element also incorporates the State -required Noise Element, identifying goals, policies, and actions addressing major noise sources, existing and future noise levels, and the location and noise exposure of existing and proposed sensitive receptors. The element describes implementation of noise reduction methods and measures that employ current and innovative practices. The following Public Safety Element goals provide Hermosa Beach with a framework for keeping residents, businesses, and visitors safe from natural and human hazards, including excessive noise levels. • Minimize Hazard Risk - Injuries and loss of life are prevented, and property loss and damage are minimized. • Consideration of Sea Level Rise -The anticipated effects of sea level rise are understood, prepared for, and successfully mitigated. • Protection from Hazardous Materials - Hermosa Beach residents, businesses, and coastal resources are protected from hazardous materials. • Community Capacity and Preparedness - Community capacity and preparedness for unavoidable hazards. • Highly Responsive Emergency Response Services - High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors. • A Resilient Community - Hermosa Beach is prepared for and recovers quickly from natural disasters. • Noise Compatibility - Noise compatibility is considered in the land use planning and design process. • Reduced Transportation Noise - Transportation noise sources are minimized. In addition, the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is incorporated in the Public Safety Element by reference. Each goal is supported by policies in the element and actions in the Implementation Plan describing how the goals will be achieved. Infrastructure Element The Infrastructure Element outlines policies and guidelines to maintain and improve infrastructure systems, including the water supply system, sewer system, storm drain system, and telecommunications and utilities in the city. This element recommends new development approaches that incorporate low -impact development standards to manage stormwater runoff and identifies new and innovative technologies to be incorporated in new development. The goals addressing the City's provision of high quality infrastructure and maintenance of infrastructure in a way that reduces ongoing costs include: • High Quality Infrastructure Systems - Infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained. • Well -Maintained and Attractive Streets - Roadway infrastructure maintenance supports convenient, attractive, and complete streets and associated amenities. • Resilient Water Supply - Adequate water supplies from diverse sources provide for the needs of current and future residents, businesses, and visitors. • Modernized Sewer System - The sewer system infrastructure is modernized and resilient. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-23 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Innovative Stormwater Management - The stormwater management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable. • Reliable and Environmentally Sustainable Utility Services - Utility services are reliable, affordable, and renewable. • Advanced Telecommunication Network - A reliable and efficient telecommunications network available to every resident, business, and institution. Each goal is supported by policies in the Infrastructure Element and actions in the Implementation Plan describing how the goals will be achieved. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Implementation Plan outlines actions that will guide the City's elected officials, commission and committee members, staff, and the public in the overall effort to implement PLAN Hermosa goals and policies. Each outlined action is a procedure, program, or technique that requires the City to act, either alone or in collaboration with non -City organizations or with federal and state agencies. Some of the actions describe processes or procedures the City currently administers on a day-to- day basis (such as review of development projects), while others require new programs or projects. Completion of each of the identified actions is subject to funding availability. Additionally, some implementation actions require physical improvements to existing infrastructure and facilities. The PLAN Hermosa policies and the Implementation Plan were all studied in this EIR at the programmatic level. However, some of the implementation actions listed in Table 3.0-7 (Implementation Actions with Direct Physical Changes) that will require direct physical changes to the environment may require future project -level CEQA review when implemented, because it is too speculative at this time to know the detail of the project (location, size, construction methods, etc.). TABLE 3.0-7 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS WITH DIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGES Mobility MOBILITY-1. Conduct an inventory and assessment of the City's sidewalk network to identify gaps, assess ADA accessibili , and prioritize improvements within the Capital Improvement Program. MOBILITY-2. Evaluate City right-of-ways and establish or update width and design standards for the construction or maintenance of streets, sidewalks, curds, utters, and parkways. MOBILITY-4. Install new signage and instructions for accessing transit locations, local and regional bicycle routes, and parking meters/machines in the Coastal Zone where existing meters and machines have been shown to cause confusion for visitors. MOBILITY-6. Install traffic calming devices in areas appropriate to mitigate an identified and documented traffic concern, as determined by the City Public Works Director or designee. Potential traffic calming applications include clearly marked and/or protected bike and pedestrian zones. bike boulevards, bulb outs, median islands, speed humps, traffic circles, speed tables, raised crosswalks, signalized crosswalks, chicanes, chokers, raised intersections, realigned intersections, and textured pavements, among other effective enhancements. MOBILITY-13. Install and maintain transportation amenities such as bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations so that they are available at each commercial district or corridor, park, and public facility. MOBILITY-15. Facilitate the operation of bicycle rental concessions in the Coastal Zone. MOBILITY-16. Install additional bicycle parking facilities and wayfinding signage near the beach, the Pier, and The Strand. MOBILITY-17. Identify access improvements including, but not limited to, additional bus stop pullouts, bus parking locations, a seasonal shuttle system, and drop off/pick up areas, and prioritize these improvements in the five-year ,Capital Improvement Program. 5ustainabili + Conservation PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-24 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUSTAINABILITY-4. Identify, prioritize, and implement greenhouse gas reduction projects utilizing the City's carbon reduction planning tools for community and municipal operations. SUSTAINABILITY- 15. For City -sponsored renovation or remodeling projects, identify a fist of qualified services that offer salvage services and maximize the use of such services. Parks + Open Space PARKS-5. Where appropriate, construct parkettes, open space, and pedestrian amenities at street ends as they intersect with The Strand. PARKS-9. Install accessible walkways at parks and onto the beach while minimizing or avoiding negative effects on the aesthetics and ecology of the beach environment. PARKS-15. Develop and implement a uniform coastal access sign program to assist the public to locate and use coastal access points. Consider adding signs to walk streets that intersect with Hermosa Avenue. PARKS-16. Identify and remove any unauthorized/unpermitted structures, including signs and fences that inhibit visibilit y of public coastal access points. Public Safatv SAFETY-15. Develop a long-term adaptive shoreline management program with a strong preference for beach repienishment over shoreline protective structures. SAFETY-21. Enhance and maintain Police Department staffing and facilities to meet established proactive time targets and clearance rates that exceed national averages. SAFETY-27. Review critical facilities proposed for development or expansion to ensure that hazardous conditions are mitigated or hazard reduction features are 'incorporated to the satisfaction of the responsible agencies. SAFETY-29. Incorporate or request from Caltrans the inclusion of soundwalls, earthen berms, or other acoustical barriers as part of any roadway improvement project adjacent to a residential area, school, or other sensitive land use, where necessa to mitigate identified adverse significant noise impacts. Infrastructure INFRASTRUCTURE-1. Create a comprehensive, long-range (20-year) infrastructure plan Integrating roadway, water, wastewater, _tormwater, waste disposal, and utility infrastructure systems. • Consider the best available science describing potential climate change impacts as a basis for preparing the infrastructure plan. • Use the infrastructure plan as a resource when preparing five-year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and setting and enforcing discretionary development requirements. • Incrementally update the infrastructure plan following the preparation of each CIP to ensure it remains consistent with changes in growth, traffic, fundinci sources, climate thane impacts, and state and regional r ulation. INFRASTRUCTURE-5. Require, as a part of development review, new development and redevelopment projects to designate areas where public infrastructure must be accommodated and to require either a land dedication or provision of the needed infrastructure by the project applicant. INFRASTRUCTURE-8. Improve the environmental compatibility of utility and infrastructure facilities by establishing and applying the following standards to new development and redevelopment projects involving utility installation .or relocation: • New utilities must be located away from, or constructed in a manner compatible with, critical habitat areas, resources, and the shoreline. Physical and service Constraints may not allow relocation away from, or full compatibility with such areas and resources. INFRASTRUCTURE-10. Develop a policy for the installation of greywater systems and rainwater collection cisterns in arks and community1facilitles, where appropriate and cost effective. INFRASTRUCTURE-11. Support efforts by Cal Water to construct necessary pump and storage facilities to ensure adequate water supply and proper waters stem balance. INFRASTRUCTURE-20. Complete municipal demonstration projects showing residential and business properly best radices in urban runoff, green.streets, and LM INFRASTRUCTURE-22. Continue to install educational signs or, .mbols on rna'orpublic storm drains. MIRASTRUCTUR.E-23. De-elop a process for!dentiying sl"es deemed appropriate for alternative renevuable energy! Qwe&r eneration facilities, and prOVfde sijcn inforn-alcion to _).till providers and potential develO eFs. ;I`lFRASIaUC URE-24 Continue to implement energy-eicientliafiing t,hr0,gh0jJty:ty claditles, City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 PLAN Hermosa Reviser( Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-25 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Government Code Section 65400 dictates that the Implementation Plan will be used to prepare the Annual Report to the City Council. The Annual Report will demonstrate the status of the City's progress in implementing the General Plan.. Because many of the individual actions also act as mitigation for environmental impacts resulting from implementation of PLAN Hermosa, the Annual Report can also serve as a means of monitoring application of mitigation measures specified in this EIR, in compliance with the requirements for Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs, as specified by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Table 3.0-8 (Implementation Actions Used in this EIR) outlines the implementation actions that are used in this EIR to support mitigation of potential environmental impacts. TABLE 3.0-8 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS USED IN THIS EIR Aesthetics LAND USE-3. Include provisions within the Zoning Code to avoid significant shadow impacts from new structures onto public recreational areas, parks or other public gathering places consistent with industry standards for evaluating shade and shadow impacts. PARKS-10. Develop and apply evaluation procedures for development projects that have the potential to substantially obstruct, substantially interfere, or substantially degrade Prominent Public Viewpoints or Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. Evaluation requirements, criteria, and provisions to allow exceptions to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards for projects with the potential to substantially obstruct, interfere or degrade Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas shall be incorporated into the review process for Precise Development Plans under Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Projects located adjacent to and within the directional arrow of a Prominent Public Viewpoint, or within the Uninterrupted Viewing Areas, as identified in PLAN Hermosa Figure 5.3, shall be evaluated to determine the potential to substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from Prominent Public Viewpoints, or the Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. The evaluation will be based on quantitative criteria established and adopted by the City to evaluate potential impacts to visual quality, landform quality, community character, and view quality. Projects that are determined to substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from these public views shall be designed to reasonably minimize the substantial obstruction, interruption or detraction to views from the Prominent Public Viewpoints or Uninterrupted Viewing Areas, which may include an exception to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards. The purpose of the exception would be to accommodate the bulk of the building in a manner that minimizes the impact to the public view while providing the property owner the same development privileges enjoyed by other similar- properties in the vicinity. Landscaping material shall be used to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast from Prominent Public Viewpoints. PARKS-11. Protect public views of the Pacific Ocean by establishing and applying requirements for public works and infrastructure projects such as: a Locate new and relocated utifitiesurrderground when possible. Place and scr4en-aII other utilities to m€nimize public visibility. A Replace automobile -scale streetlights with shorter, pedestrian -scale streetlights where safe and appropriate. Fences, walls, and landscaping shall not block views of scenic areas from designated viewpoints, scenic roads, parks, beaches, and other public viewing areas. 9 Hardscape elements such as retaining wails, cut-off walls, abutments, bridges, and culverts shall incorporate veneers, texturiri , and color that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape, PARKS-12. Minimize nighttime light pollution by establishing and applying the following development review requirements: 4 Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational tights, and other Similar lighting) shall be minimized, :rAto intensity j' o_ 61 �! (L. I 11 LL w „t> I �I_ ... festricted to iov intensity Ilxtur=_s, Srie deed, (u,l C_i0, , ail do, ncas (emitting n0 ight above _lie horl7_Oni:al o an•s Of the fixture) concealed to the lrxliiila, feasible xiAn'' SC that n0 isgh' SCUrC IS (4 ec�ly 'v!Si le trot l public viewirin a_eas, there is no glare nr _pill reyond the property lines and the limn hiiLb is not direct.y visibly f-nm within arry residential unit. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-26 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARKS-13. Minimize the negative aesthetic impacts of signs by establishing or revising and applying the following design requirements: • Enforce appropriate limits on height, size, design, and materials of signs. • Prohibit signs other than traffic or public safety signs that would obstruct views to the ocean, beach, parks, or other scenic areas. • Enforce sign maintenance controls. • Continue restrictions on the use of lights and moving arts in signs, billboards, and rooftop signs. Air uali LAND USE-12. Create a checklist and resource guide comprising local, state, and federal requirements for the development of offshore renewable eneQy facilities to streamline permitting requirements and improve public awareness. MOBILITY-6. Install traffic calming devices in areas appropriate to mitigate an identified and documented traffic concern, as determined by the City Public Works Director or designee. Potential traffic calming applications include clearly marked and/or protected bike and pedestrian zones, bike boulevards, bulb outs, median islands, speed humps, traffic circles, speed tables, raised crosswalks, signalized crosswalks, chicanes, chokers, raised intersections, realigned intersections, and textured pavements, among other effective enhancements. MOBILITY-12. Maintain and periodically update the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance with activities that will reduce auto trips associated with new development. MOBILITY-13. Install and maintain transportation amenities such as bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations so that they are available at each commercial district or corridor, park, andublic facility. MOBILITY-15. Facilitate the operation of bicycle rental concessions in the Coastal Zone. MOBILITY-19. Develop congestion management performance measures and significant impact thresholds that are in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requirements for roadway segments and intersections. SUSTAINABILITY-1. Establish a local greenhouse gas impact fee for discretionary projects to provide an option to offset greenhouse gas emissions generated above established thresholds, by providing funding for implementation of local GHG reduction projects. SUSTAINABILITY-2. Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds of significance and standardize potential mitigation measures for non-exempt discretionary projects. SUSTAINABILITY-6. Implement the City's clean fleet policy through the purchase or lease of vehicles and equipment that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Improve air quality. SUSTAINABILITY-7. Concurrent with new State Building Code adoptions, periodically update or amend Green Building Standards and conduct cost effectiveness studies to incorporate additional energy -efficiency and energy production features. S U STAINABILITY- 8. Develop and market a program to offer incentives such as rebates, fee waivers, or permit streamlininq to facilitate the installation of renewable energy, energy efficient, or water conservation a ui ment. S U STAINABILITY- 16. Revise the Municipal Code as necessary to ensure it reflects up-to-date practices to reduce potential for soil erosion and ways to minimize or eliminate the effects of radio on the loss of topsoil, SU STAINABILITY- 17. Develop a citywide expansive and corrosive soils screening tool to reduce the need forsite-specific soil re orts. PARKS-19. Amend the Local Implementation Plan/Zoning Code to require applicants for summer events occurring on weekends or holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day with greater than 1,000 participants to provide and advertise predetermined shuttle services and bicycle corrals. SAFETY-17. Provide information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for the proper disposal of toxic materials to avoid environmental degradation to the air, soil, and water resources from toxic materials contamination. INFRASTRUCTURE-23. Develop a process for identifying sites deemed appropriate for alternative renewable energy ewer generation facilities, and provide such information to utiRy providers and potential developers. INFRASTRUCTURE-24. Continue to implement energy -efficient lighting throw bout City facilities. Biological Resources LAND USE-12. Create a checklist and resource guide comprising local, state, and federal requirements for the development of offshore renewable energy facilities to streamline permittinq requirements and improve public awareness City of Hermosa Beach August 2027 3.0-27 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARKS-21. Partner with local nonprofits such as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission or the University of California, Los Angeles, to conduct education demonstration projects or presentations on coastal and marine habitat conservation. PARKS-22. Evaluate existing beach conditions and identify areas that may be appropriate to restore vegetated dune habitat. Pursue grant funding. PARKS-23. Review and revise as needed, the City's tree ordinance to ensure protection of existing parkway trees, and update the master tree list. PARKS-24. Complete and maintain a citywide public tree inventory, including quantity, species type, diameter, condition, trimming strategies and geo-codes and recommendations. PARKS-25. Maintain a list of approved plantings for trees and landscaping within City parkways. PARKS-26. Amend the Municipal Code to incorporate tree removal and replacement requirements in the public right of way. If preservation of existing mature trees is not feasible, removed trees shall be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio either on -site or elsewhere as prescribed by the City, Cultural Resources GOVERNANCE-5. Incorporate guidance related to Native American consultation and treatment of prehistoric and Native American resources into local CEQA guidelines for Hermosa Beach. LAND USE-2. Establish development standards within the Zoning Code to establish any new land use designations and modify existing development standards to articulate the appropriate building form, scale, and massing for each established character area and the applicable density/intensitydensity/intensity standards. LAND USE-3. Include provisions within the Zoning Code to avoid significant shadow impacts from new structures onto public recreational areas, parks or other public gathering places consistent with industry standards for evaluating shade and shadow impacts. LAND USE-13. Amend the CEQA documentation and initial study process to ensure cultural and historical resources are studied in accordance with CEQA and any local historic ereservation program. LAND USE-15. Review and update eligibility criteria to use in the designation of local historic sites or historic districts. LAND USE-16. Develop emergency preparedness and disaster response plans for cultural resources, including a recovery action plan that addresses long-range decisions likely to be faced by the City following a major disaster, including economic recovery, protocols for demolition or restoration of damaged historic structures, and fee deferral for repair permits. LAND USE-17. Create a program to provide for the voluntary installation of plaques and/or public art related to historic buildings and sites in the city - LAND USE-18. Research and develo2 innovative policies for preserving historic properties. LAND USE-19. Work with community organizations to develop brochures, guides, walking tours, and other marketing materials to highlight existing public art in Hermosa Beach. LAND USE-20. Develop historic preservation expertise among staff and decision makers on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, preservation ordinances, the State Historical Building Code, environmental review for historical resources, and tax credits and incentives. LAND USE -21. All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on previously undisturbed land shall be required to conduct archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA regulations to determine if the project is sensitive for cultural resources. Additionally, as the Lead Agency for future discretionary projects, the City is required under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult with those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal consultation or archaeological investigation, the City shall weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to complete training on archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or requiring a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance. Geology and Soils PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-28 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION S U STAINABILITY- 16. Revise the Municipal Code as necessary to ensure it reflects up-to-date practices to reduce potential for soil erosion and ways to minimize or eliminate the effects oLgrading on the loss of topsoil. S U STAINABILITY- 17. Develop a citywide expansive and corrosive soils screening tool to reduce the need for site -specific soil reports. SAFETY-1. Continue to adopt and enforce the most up-to-date California Building Standards Code and California Fire Code, with appropriate local amendments. SAFETY-2. Continue to inventory unreinforced brick masonry, soft -story, and other seismically vulnerable private buildings. Identify potential funding sources to assist with seismic retrofits. SAFETY-3. Enforce seismic design provisions of the current California Building Standards Code related to geologic, seismic, and slope hazards, with appropriate local amendments. SAFETY-4. For properties identified as possibly containing acidic, expansive, or collapsible soils, require site -specific soil condition reports and appropriate mitigation as a condition of new development. SAFETY-6. Evaluate the landslide potential of a project site and require implementation of landslide mitigation measures when, during the course of a geotechnical investigation, areas prone to landslide are found. Potential landslide mitigation measures include, but are not limited to the following: • Avoidance: Developments should be built sufficiently far away from the threat that they will not be affected even if a landslide does occur. • Reduction: Reduction of landslide hazards should be achieved by increasing the factor of safety of the landslide area to an acceptable level, based on current engineering standards and practices. This can be accommodated by eliminating slopes with active/inactive landslides, removing the unstable soil and rock materials, or applying one or more appropriate slope stabilization methods (such as buttress fills, subdrains, soil nailing, crib walls, etc) SAFETY-7. Require projects located within the Liquefaction Areas identified in PLAN Hermosa to evaluate the liquefaction potential and require implementation of mitigation measures when, during the course of a geotechnical investigation, shallow groundwater (60 feet or less) and potentially liquefiable soils are found. Potential liquefaction mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, soil densification or compaction, displacement or compaction grouting, and use ofpost-tensioned slab foundations, plies, or caissons. Greenhouse Gas Emissions S U STAINABILITY- 1. Establish a local greenhouse gas impact fee for discretionary projects to provide an option to offset greenhouse gas emissions generated above established thresholds, by providing funding for implementation of local GHG reduction projects. SUSTAINABILITY-2. Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds of significance and standardize potential mitigation measures for non-exempt discretionary projects, SUSTAINABILITY-4. Identify, prioritize, and implement greenhouse gas reduction projects utilizing the City's carbon reduction planning tools for community and municipal o erations. SU STAINABILITY- 5. Regularly monitor and evaluate the City's greenhouse gas emissions inventory and report on progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals. Hazards and Hazardous Materials SAFETY-16. Include updated hazardous materials considerations in regular Emergency Operation Plan updates and work with the County of Los Angeles to update local Hazardous Materials Area Plans on a regular basis. SAFETY-17, Provide information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for the proper disposal of toxic materials to avoid environmental degradation to the air, soil, and water resources from toxic materials contamination. SAFETY-18. Designate an emergency response team to monitor and respond to regional disasters such as oil spills and other shoreline disasters. Such a team must maintain an emergency response plan that includes coordination with other aciencies and iurisdictions in the region on initial response, aid, and recovery. SAFETY-24. Periodically update the emergency operations plan. SAFETY-25. Periodically update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and concurrently amend the Public Safety Element to maintain ell ibili. t y for maximum grant funding. SAFETY-28. Identify hazard -specific evacuation routes and share with the public, businesses, and other government [agencies. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-29 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Hydrology and Water ual' SUSTAINABILITY-9. Maintain and periodically update the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan sections of the Municipal Code to facilitate the use of new technologies or practices to conserve water. SAFETY-5. Evaluate tsunami preparation, evacuation, and response policies/practices to reflect current inundation maps and desi n standards. Include updated information in the periodically updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. SAFETY-9. Continue working with regional partners to develop a local sea level rise model that evaluates erosion potential, provides detailed inundation maps, and provides combined sea level rise and tsunami maps. SAFETY-10. When the mean high water level exceeds 1 foot above the baseline level, partner with FEMA as a cooperating technical partner to conduct a Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study, and facilitate necessary revisions to applicable Flood Insurance Rate Maps. SAFETY-11. Prepare for changing shoreline conditions by establishing and applying the following development review requirements: • Require new development or redevelopment project proposals within the designated area subject to flooding, inundation, or erosion due to sea level rise to describe and illustrate in site plans how the proposed project considers and mitigates potential flood hazards during the economic lifespan of the structure. Potential flood mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, flood proofing; increased ground floor elevation (a minimum of 1-foot freeboard); ground -floor, flood -resistant exterior materials; and restricting fencing or yard enclosures that cause water to pond. • Require new development or redevelopment projects to assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the project site or surrounding area. • As local flood, erosion, and tsunami data becomes more precise, amend the General Plan and Zoning Code to establish mores ecific development standards and conditions. SAFETY-12. Amend the Municipal Code to establish a definition of "economic lifespan" for structural development as between 75 to 100 years, unless otherwise specified, and provide restrictions forspecific development proposals. SAFETY-13. Amend the Municipal Code to require flood risk disclosure and active acknowledgment of expanded flood risk when properties subject to inundation or flooding are developed or redeveloped. SAFETY-14. Continue to participate in regional sediment management planning. SAFETY-15. Develop a long-term adaptive shoreline management program with a strong preference for beach replenishment over shoreline protective structures. INFRASTRUCTURE-1. Create a comprehensive, long-range (20-year) infrastructure plan integrating roadway, water, wastewater, stormwater, waste disposal, and utility infrastructure systems. • Consider the best available science describing potential climate change impacts as a basis for preparing the infrastructure plan. • Use the infrastructure plan as a resource when preparing five-year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and setting and enforcing discretionary development requirements. • Incrementally update the infrastructure plan following the preparation of each CIP to ensure it remains consistent with changes in growth, traffic, funding sources, climate change impacts, and state and regional regulation. INFRASTRUCTURE-9. Consult with Cal Water to estimate and evaluate water supplies, provide public information and incentives for water conservation best practices. INFRASTRUCTURE-10. Develop a policy for the installation of greywater systems and rainwater collection cisterns in arks and community facilities, where appropriate and cost effective. INFRASTRUCTURE-11. Support efforts by Cal Water to construct necessary pump and storage facilities to ensure adequate water supply and proper waters stem balance. INFRASTRUCTURE-12. Amend the Municipal Code to require the installation of dual water plumbing hookups for landscaping irrigation, grading, and other non -contact uses in new development and major redevelopment projects where recycled water is available or expected to be available based on adopted infrastructure plans. INFRASTRUCTURE-13. Continue to implement the Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan and any implementing ordinances, including imposition of fines and other appropriate enforcement tools, forviolations of water conservation rules. INFRASTRUCTURE-18. Continue to implement and incorporate revisions to the Clean Bay Restaurant Program and Grease Control Ordinance. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-30 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION INFRASTRUCTURE-19. Update program requirements to integrate the latest available Best Management Practices into the City Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance, and Green Streets Policy and regularly monitor results. INFRASTRUCTURE-20. Complete municipal demonstration projects showing residential and business property best practices in urban runoff, green streets, and LID. INFRASTRUCTURE-21. Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate green street BMPs that address stormwater runoff from the project area using the Green Street BMP Selection Guidelines identified in Attachment A of the Ci 's Green Street Policy. INFRASTRUCTURE-22. Continue to install educational s"s ns or symbols on major Rublic storm drains. Land Use and Planning LAND USE-1. Amend the Zoning Map to bring consistency between PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations and Zoning Ordinance Zoning Districts and review development standards for non -conforming uses. LAND USE-2. Establish development standards within the Zoning Code to establish any new land use designations and modify existing development standards to articulate the appropriate building form, scale, and massing for each established character area and the applicable densitylintensity standards. Noise and Vibration SAFETY-29. Incorporate or request from Caltrans the inclusion of soundwalls, earthen berms, or other acoustical barriers as part of any roadway improvement project adjacent to a residential area, school, or other sensitive land use, where necessary to mitigate identified adverse significant noise 'impacts. SAFETY-30. Enforce and periodically evaluate truck and bus movements and routes to reduce impacts on sensitive areas, and promote coordination between the Police Department and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the State Motor Vehicle noise standards, to minimize or reduce noise impacts on residential and other sensitive land uses. SAFETY-31. Apply the Noise Element standards of compatibility described in PLAN Hermosa to new development proposals. Require the mitigation of extraordinary impacts through design features such as building orientation and acoustical barriers, to ensure compatibility. SAFETY-32. Require new multi -family development, single-family development, and condominium conversion projects to meet the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code) for interior and exterior noise levels. SAFETY-33. Acoustical analysis reports prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant shall be required for new sensitive land uses within noise impact areas (i.e., those areas where the existing or future CNEL exceeds 60 dB). SAFETY-34. Adopt and enforce a quantitative Noise and Vibration Ordinance to reduce excessive noise and vibration from site -specific sources such as construction activity, mechanical equipment, landscaping maintenance, loud music, truck traffic, loading and unloading activities, and other sources. SAFETY-35. Periodically review adopted noise standards, policies and regulations affecting noise in order to conform to changes in legislation and/or technoio ies. SAFETY-36. Comply with all state and federal OSHA noise standards, and all new equipment purchases shall comply with state and federal noise standards. Population and Housing LAND USE-1. Amend the Zoning Map to bring consistency between PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations and Zoning Ordinance Zoning Districts and review development standards for non -conforming uses. Public Services LAND USE-5. Develop an inventory of underutilized or surplus property that may be appropriate for City or School District use or purchase to serve community education and recreational needs in the future. MOBILITY-12. Maintain and periodically update the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance with activities that will reduce auto trips associated with new development. MOBILITY-13, Install and maintain transportation amenities such as bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations so that the are available at each commercial district or corridor, park, and public facility. MOBILITY-18. In conjunction with the Hermosa Beach City School District, the City will identify school access points, a proposed network, education and enforcement programs to provide a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program, SUSTAINABILITY-7. Concurrent with new State Building Code adoptions, periodically update or amend Green Building Standards and conduct cost effectiveness studies to incorporate additional energy -efficiency and energy production features. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-31 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUSTAINABILITY-8. Develop and market a program to offer incentives such as rebates, fee waivers, or permit streamlining to facilitate the installation of renewable energy, energy efficient, or water conservation equipment. SUSTAINABILITY-9. Maintain and periodically update the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan sections of the Municipal Code to facilitate the use of new technologies or practices to conserve water. SUSTAINABILITY-10-. Create and adopt a Zero Waste Action Plan to maximize waste diversion from landfills. S U STAINABILITY- 11. Amend the Municipal Code to require that all commercial facilities make full -service recycling available for both customer use and business use, placina attractive and convenient bins in clear locations. SUSTAINABILITY-12. Consistent with State law, require that all multi -family residential uses provide an adequate number of attractive and convenient recyclinq bins to serve the number of units in the complex. S U STAINABILITY- 13. Require that all restaurants use com ostable single -use items like takeout boxes. S U STAINABILITY- 14. Create an informational packet to be distributed to development project applicants on the use of recycled materials in new development and redevelopment pLojects. PARKS-1. Conduct needs assessments and evaluate recreational program offerings to ensure community needs and priorities are being met. Conduct regular updates to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. PARKS-2. Conduct periodic assessments of public facilities and maintain a list of priority replacement or new facilities projects. PARKS-3. Establish parks level of service and level of access standards to prioritize the development, upgrade, and renovation of p2rks and open sce facilities. PARKS-4. Update City standards and fees related to the provision of parks and open space and sustainable funding source for providing high quAty and well maintained facilities. PARKS-5. Where appropriate, construct parkettes, open space, and pedestrian amenities at street ends as they intersect with The Strand. PARKS-6. Continue, renew, and expand as needed, joint use agreements with the School District to allow community use of school fields and facilities. PARKS-7. Partner with the School District, community groups, and neighboring communities to identify and apply for rant opportunities to maintain, enhance, and ex and park and recreational opportunities. SAFETY-1. Continue to adopt and enforce the most up-to-date California Building Standards Code and California Fire Code, with appropriate local amendments. SAFETY-8. Support community safety and fire protection standards by establishing and applying the following development review requirements to be reviewed by HBFD and HBPD as appropriate: • New development and significant redevelopment projects shall coordinate with HBFD and Cal Water to provide and maintain adequate peak flow rates for firefighting. New development, significant redevelopment, and public improvement projects shall ensure that building designs provide for adequate emergency access and that changes to the right-of-way do not impede access for emergency responder's apparatus or personnel. SAFETY-20. Establish and meet EMS and Fire response time standard of 7 minutes or less for 90% of incidents. SAFETY-21. Enhance and maintain Police Department staffing and facilities to meet established proactive time targets and clearance rates that exceed national averages. SAFETY-22. Continue to support existing mutual and automatic aid agreements providing additional fire and police resources needed during an emergency, as feasible. INFRASTRUCTURE-1. Create a comprehensive, long-range (20-year) infrastructure plan integrating roadway, water, wastewater, stormwater, waste disposal, and utility infrastructure systems. • Consider the best available science describing potential climate change impacts as a basis for preparing the infrastructure plan. • Use the infrastructure plan as a resource when preparing five-year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and setting and enforcing discretionary development requirements. • Incrementally update the infrastructure plan following the preparation of each CIP to ensure it remains consistent with changes in growth, traffic, funding sources, climate change impacts, and state and regional re ufation. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-32 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION INFRASTRUCTURE-8. Improve the environmental compatibility of utility and infrastructure facilities by establishing and applying the following standards to new development and redevelopment projects involving utility installation or relocation: • New utilities must be located away from, or constructed in a manner compatible with, critical habitat areas, resources, and the shoreline. Physical and service constraints may not allow relocation away from or full compatibiky with such areas and resources. INFRASTRUCTURE-9. Consult with Cal Water to estimate and evaluate water supplies, provide public information and incentives for water conservation best practices. INFRASTRUCTURE-10. Develop a policy for the installation of greywater systems and rainwater collection cisterns in arks and community facilities, where appropriate and cost effective. INFRASTRUCTURE-11. Support efforts by Cal Water to construct necessary pump and storage facilities to ensure adequate water supply and proper waters stem balance. INFRASTRUCTURE-12. Amend the Municipal Code to require the installation of dual water plumbing hookups for landscaping irrigation, grading, and other non -contact uses in new development and major redevelopment projects where recycled water is available or expected to be available based on adopted infrastructure plans. INFRASTRUCTURE-13. Continue to implement the Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan and any ,implementing ordinances, including imposition of fines and other appropriate enforcement tools, for violations of water conservation rules. INFRASTRUCTURE-14. Ensure adequate and resilient sewer system capacity by establishing and applying the following development review requirements: • New development or redevelopment projects involving construction. of 8-inch diameter or larger sewers that connect directly or indirectly to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' sewer system must prepare a sewer plan identifying that the existing sewer collection and treatment systems have available capacity to support such an increase, or provide for necessary system upgrades as part of the proposed -Project. INFRASTRUCTURE-16. Implement a financing plan, including use of the adopted sewer fee and loans, to ensure that resources are available for investment in annual rehabilitation ro'ects to improve sanitay sewer pipes. INFRASTRUCTURE-17, Prepare an annual report for City Council documenting sewer system operations, actions to minimize overflows, incident - of overflows, and their impacts on receivinq waters and public health and safety. INFRASTRUCTURE-23. Develop a process for identifying sites deemed appropriate for alternative renewable energy power generation facilities, and provide such information to utility providers and potential developers. INFRASTRUCTURE-24. Continue to implement energy- eff i cient lighting throughout City facilities. INFRASTRUCTURE-25. Survey all streetlights periodically for functionality and create a response protocol to respond to reports of streetlight outacles within a 24-hour time oeriod. GOVERNANCE-4. Continue to participate and partner with neighboring cities and regional organizations to implement ro'ects and achieve goals that enhance the livability of Hermosa Beach, MOBILITY-1. Conduct an inventory and assessment of the City`s sidewalk network to identify gaps, assess ADA acces ibility, and prioritize improvements within the Capital Improvement Program. MOBILITY-2. Evaluate City right-of-ways and establish or update width and design standards for the construction or maintenance of streets, sidewalks, Curbs, utiei-s, and parkways, MOBILITY-3. Add definitions to the Municipal Code for street classifications, pedestrian facilities, bicycle and multi -use facilities, and transportation amenities. MOBILITY-4. Install new signage and instructions for accessing transit locations, local and regional bicycle routes, and parking meters/machines in the Coastal Zone where existing meters and machines have been shown to cause confusion for visitors. MOBILTY-5. Evaluate operations in local neighborhood streets with considerations to speed management strategies and traffic calnning measures to increase safety for all people using the street. NIOSILI T Y-6. Install traffic caiming devices in areas appropriate to mitigate an Identified and documented traffic concern, as determined by the City 9u1•llc Works Director or desicinee. ; otentlal traffic calming applica?ions Include Clearly marked andJor protected bike ana, pedesti:ail zones, Jlko e,J!1?VaiciS, b!IIID outs, ,arjart ,speed h! mcs, traffic circles, speed gables raised cross4„alks, signalized crosswalks, .pica; es, Chokers, raised i?rsC-Ct19i 5, realigned) Intersections, and textured pavements, amon other effective enhancements. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2417 Revised ®raft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-33 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION MOBILITY-7. Work with commercial property owners to conduct an assessment for utilization of private parking supplies to supplement private and public parking needs and evaluate the potential for shared use agreements or MOUs. MOBILTY-8. Implement a contingency -based overflow parking plan to address seasonal and event- based parking demands. MOBILITY-9. Periodically conduct a city-wide parking study to analyze existing parking infrastructure in order to effectively address and mans e current and future parking needs. MOBILITY-10. Set utilization and turnover rate goals and implement dynamically adjusted (demand -based) pricing strategies for public parking supplies. MOBILITY-11. Develop a smart technology street parking system in the Coastal Zone that includes but is not limited to the following features: • Variable -cost parking linked to demand; • Smart phone application identifying available metered spaces; and • Parkin2 pay -by -card and pay -by -phone programs. MOBILITY-12. Maintain and periodically update the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance with activities that will reduce auto tries associated with new development. MOBILITY-13. install and maintain transportation amenities such as bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations so that they are available at each commercial district or corridor, park, and public facility. MOBILITY-14. Periodically review the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan to consider new or modified facilities and opportunities. MOBILITY-15. Facilitate the operation of bicycle rental concessions in the Coastal Zone. MOBILITY-16. install additional bicycle parking facilities and wa Fnding si na a near the beach, the Pier, and The Strand: MOBILITY-17, Identify access improvements including, but not limited to, additional bus stop pullouts, bus parking locations, a seasonal shuttle system, and drop off/pick up areas, and prioritize these improvements in the five-year Capital Imorovement Program. MOBILITY-18. In conjunction with the Hermosa Beach City School District, the City will identify school access points, a proposed. network, education and enforcement programs to provide a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program. MOBILITY-19. Develop congestion management performance measures and significant impact thresholds that are in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requirements for roadway segments and intersections. SUSTAINABILITY-6. Implement the City's clean fleet policy through the purchase or lease of vehicles and equipment that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air qualm . PARKS-8. identify and evaluate the ADA compliance of parks, public facilities, and coastal public access points. PARKS-9. Install accessible walkways at parks and onto the beach while minimizing or avoiding negative effects on the aesthetics and ecology of the beach environment. PARKS-15. Develop and implement a uniform coastal access sign program to assist the public to locate and use coastal access points. Consider adding signs to walk streets that in, with Hermosa Avenue. PARKS-16. Identify and remove any unauthorized/unpermitted structures, including signs and fences that inhibit visibility of public coastal access 2oints. 'PARKS-19. Amend the Local Implementation Pian/—Loning Cote Lo require applicants for summer events occurring on weekends or holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day with greater than 1,000 participants to provide and advertise predetermined shuttle services and bicycle corrals. INFRASTRUCTURE-6. Aggressively seek regional, state, and federal funds to leverage local money earmarked for projects listed in the CIP. INFRASTRUCTURE-7. Periodically review, and if needed revise, the development fee schedule to ensure it is adequate and reflective of proposed projects' impacts and required services. PLAN Hermosa Revises) Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Hermosa Reach August 7017 —0-34 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The proposed project covers the development of the City's Coastal Implementation Plan, which will provide development standards and regulations applicable in the Coastal Zone and will outline an administrative process for the issuance of coastal development permits. The Implementation Plan will include revisions to the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code regarding permitting procedures, visitor -serving accommodations, special events, transportation demand management, coastal -dependent or coastal -related commercial uses, increased flood risk under anticipated sea level rise scenarios, and water quality. While the Coastal Implementation Plan will be approved at a later date, PLAN Hermosa includes a series of actions that detail the types of changes to be made to the Hermosa Beach municipal code. The implementation actions, identified in Table 3.0-9 (Actions Related to the Coastal Implementation Plan), provide sufficient detail to evaluate the potential physical impacts of the Coastal Implementation Plan in conjunction with PLAN Hermosa and are analyzed in this EIR. TABLE 3.0-9 ACTIONS RELATED TO THE COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN LAND USE-1. Amend the Zoning Map to bring consistency between PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations and Zoning Ordinance Zoning Districts and review development standards for non -conforming uses. LAND USE-6. Establish within the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan a method to define and classify existing facilities and proposed projects providing overnight accommodations in the Coastal Zone as low, mid -range, or high cost, and apply this method to the Coastal Development Permit review process. The method should compare hotel room rates to the California statewide and regional averages, and should be updated as the City's fee schedule is updated. LAND USE-7. Modify the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan and Zoning Map to better accommodate coastal - dependent and coastal -related uses, as follows: • Establish definitions for coastal -dependent and coastal -related uses consistent with the California Coastal Act. For each, identify a list of priority uses that meets the definition. • Contract the C-2 (Downtown Commercial) zone district to match the Recreational Commercial land use designation. • Modify the permitted use tables to allow specific coastal -dependent commercial uses in the C-1, C-2, and SPA 11 zone districts. ■ Modify the permitted use tables to allow coastal -dependent and coastal -related industrial uses in the M-1 zone district. LAND USE-8. Modify the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan to require any proposal for visitor -serving accommodations providing a majority of units at mid -range or high -cost levels to include public amenities such as plazas and spaces, restaurants, retail units, garden viewing areas, or other day -use features that may be used by the general public at no or relatively low cost. The quality and quantity of required amenities will be determined in the Coastal Development Permit review process. This requirement does not prohibit the proposed project from charging a user fee or resort fee for active amenities such as pool and spa access, recreation activities and equipment, or organized group activities on the property. LAND USE-9. Establish a visitor -serving accommodations fee program for new high -cost overnight accommodations. Fee revenues may provide funding to support specific projects that preserve (first priority) or establish (second priority) low- or mid -cost overnight visitor accommodations that improve access to the coast by providing visitors with an affordable place to stay overnight. Collaborating with the Coastal Commission, the City shall prepare and maintain a list of specific projects that fee revenues may be used to support. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-35 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USE-10. Require new visitor -serving accommodations within the Coastal Zone to maintain or improve public access to the coast by establishing and applying the following development review requirements in the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan: • Where a new hotel or motel development project would consist entirely of high -cost overnight accommodations, the development shall be required to provide mitigation as a condition of approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Such mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a mitigation payment consistent with the City's visitor - serving accommodations fee program. • If a hotel or motel project proposes a certain number or percentage of on -site low or mid -range cost units, such units shall remain available as low or mid -range cost units for the life of the project. LAND USE-11. Protect existing visitor -serving accommodations within the Coastal Zone by establishing and applying the following development review requirements in the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan: • Any development project that directly displaces existing low and mid -range cost accommodations in the Coastal Zone shall provide an equivalent number of rooms or accommodations at an equivalent nightly rate in the Coastal Zone, or elsewhere within the City of Hermosa Beach. • Replacement units must be subject to deed restrictions recorded against the title of the property so that they mitigate the displacement of lower- and mid -range cost accommodations for the life of the project. MOBILITY-15. Facilitate the operation of bicycle rental concessions in the Coastal Zone. MOBILITY-16. Install additional bicycle parking facilities and wayfinding signage near the beach, the Pier, and The Strand. PARKS-10. Develop and apply evaluation procedures for development projects that have the potential to substantially obstruct, substantially interfere, or substantially degrade Prominent Public Viewpoints or Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. Evaluation requirements, criteria, and provisions to allow exceptions to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards for projects with the potential to substantially obstruct, interfere or degrade Prominent Public 'Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas shall be incorporated into the review process for Precise Development Plans under Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: • Projects located adjacent to and within the directional arrow of a Prominent Public Viewpoint, or within the Uninterrupted Viewing Areas, as identified in PLAN Hermosa Figure 5.3, shall be evaluated to determine the potential to substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from Prominent Public Viewpoints, or the Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. • The evaluation will be based on quantitative criteria established and adopted by the City to evaluate potential impacts to visual quality, landform quality, community character, and view quality. • Projects that are determined to substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from these public views shall be designed to reasonably minimize the substantial obstruction, interruption or detraction to views from the Prominent Public Viewpoints or Uninterrupted Viewing Areas, which may include an exception to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards. The purpose of the exception would be to accommodate the bulk-of-the—building-in-a-manner_that-minimizes the impact to the public view while providing the property owner the same development privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity. • Landscaping material shall be used to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast from Prominent Public Viewpoints. PARKS-11. Protect public views of the Pacific Ocean by establishing and applying requirements for public works and infrastructure projects such as: • Locate new and relocated utilities underground when possible. Place and screen all other utilities to minimize public visibility. • Replace automobile -scale streetlights with shorter, pedestrian -scale streetlights where safe and appropriate. • Fences, walls, and landscaping shall not block views of scenic areas from designated viewpoints, scenic roads, parks, beaches, and other public viewing areas. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-36 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Hardscape elements such as retaining walls, cut-off walls, abutments, bridges, and culverts shall incorporate veneers, texturing, and colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. PARKS-14. Modify the Zoning Code/Local Implementation Plan to prohibit use of the public beach for private commercial purposes without a Coastal Development Permit. PARKS-17. Protect public access to the coast by establishing and applying the following development review requirements: • When projects may cause or contribute to adverse impacts to existing public access points, require a direct dedication or an easement to provide an alternative access point. Access ways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two-way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer. • Implement building design and siting regulations to protect public access through setbacks and other property development regulations that control building placement. • New development and redevelopment projects shall protect public accessibility to walk streets and street ends that provide access to the shoreline, the beach, and The Strand. • New or improved beach access facilities shall accommodate persons with physical disabilities. PARKS-19. Amend the Local Implementation Plan/Zoning Code to require applicants for summer events occurring on weekends or holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day with greater than 1,000 participants to provide and advertise predetermined shuttle services and bicycle corrals. SAFETY-12. Amend the Municipal Code to establish a definition of "economic lifespan" for structural development as between 75 to 100 years, unless otherwise specified, and provide restrictions for specific development proposals. SAFETY-13. Amend the Municipal Code to require flood risk disclosure and active acknowledgment of expanded flood risk when properties subject to inundation or flooding are developed or redeveloped. 3.O.5 PROJECT APPROVALS Project approval requires the following actions by the Hermosa Beach City Council: • Certification of this EIR • Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The EIR will be used in the consideration of subsequent actions, including: • Certification of the City's Coastal Local Implementation Plan • Zoning amendments • Subdivision maps • Community plans • Specific plans • Special planning districts • Special permits • Historic preservation actions • Planning actions • Infrastructure and public facilities siting and project approvals • Climate Action Plan • Other related actions City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-37 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.O.6 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES LEAD AGENCY In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the City of Hermosa Beach is the lead agency for preparation of the PLAN Hermosa environmental analysis. The City, as the lead agency, is responsible for scoping the analysis, preparing the EIR, and responding to comments received on the Draft EIR. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Responsible agencies are other state and local public agencies that have authority to carry out or approve a project or that are required to approve a portion of the project for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or initial study/negative declaration. Because the proposed project is a General Plan, no agencies other than the City of Hermosa Beach have approval or permitting authority for the plan's adoption. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would involve many additional responsible agencies, depending on the specifics of the nature of subsequent projects. The following are some of the agencies that may be required to act as responsible agencies for subsequent projects: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • California Coastal Commission • California Air Resources Board • California Department of Housing and Community Development • California Office of Historic Preservation • State Reclamation Board • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • State Lands Commission • California Department of Parks and Recreation • State vv/ater Resources Control Board • South Coast Air Quality Management District • Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for the County of Los Angeles • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. TRUSTEE AGENCIES Trustee agencies under CEQA are public agencies with legal jurisdiction over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of California and that would be affected by a project, whether the agencies have authority to approve or implement the project. The California Coastal Commission is a trustee agency since it will approve the Local Coastal Program under its authority through the California Coastal Act. Subsequent development under PLAN Hermosa would not generally affect lands under the jurisdiction of a trustee agency; however, the trustee agencies with jurisdiction that could be affected by subsequent projects include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Lands Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2017 3.0-38 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0.7 REFERENCES City of Hermosa Beach. 2014. Existing Conditions Report (also referred to as the Technical Background Report). OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research). 2003. General Plan Guidelines. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 3.0-39 PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.0-40 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS 4.0.1 BASELINE EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSUMED IN THE ANALYSIS Each resource section in this Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (see Sections 4.1 through 4.14) summarizes the environmental setting specific to that resource topic. The environmental setting summary is based on information from the Technical Background Reports included in Appendix C. SCOPE Sections 4.1 through 4.14 present the environmental impact analysis for the anticipated effects of implementation of PLAN Hermosa. Topics evaluated in these resource sections are described in Chapter 2.0, Introduction, and were identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix B). 4.0.2 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE Each resource section presents an evaluation of a particular environmental topic and includes a summary of existing conditions (both physical and regulatory), potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures proposed to reduce significant environmental impacts (where necessary), and a determination of the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This subsection provides summary information about the existing physical environment related to the resource topic. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15125, the discussion of the physical environment describes existing conditions in the planning area at the time the NOP was filed in August 2015. The basis for the Environmental Setting is information provided in the Technical Background Reports (Appendix C). REGULATORY SETTING This subsection summarizes federal, state, regional, and local plans, policies, laws, and regulations that apply to the resource. A full description of the Regulatory Setting for each resource section is included in the Technical Background Reports (Appendix C). THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The thresholds of significance that will serve as the basis for judging impact significance are identified in each resource section. Thresholds of significance used for the evaluation of impacts include those thresholds currently used by the City when reviewing individual projects. The City of Hermosa Beach considers these thresholds appropriate for evaluating the significance of impacts in the city that could occur with implementation of PLAN Hermosa. IMPACTS The impacts discussion describes potential consequences to each resource that would result from implementation of PLAN Hermosa associated with development potential and implementation of its policy provisions as compared to existing conditions. PLAN Hermosa does not entitle any development project or require that the City meet the buildout projections identified in Tables 3.0-3 and 3.0-4. Subsequent implementation and projects under PLAN Hermosa would be evaluated for consistency with the plan and in light of the environmental analysis provided in this EIR. The reader is referred to Chapter 2.0, Introduction, regarding the programmatic analysis provided in this EIR and its use for evaluation of subsequent projects. Potential environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories: • The term "no impact" is used when the environmental resource being discussed would not or may not be adversely affected by implementation of PLAN Hermosa. This impact level does not require mitigation. • A less than significant impact would or may cause a minor but acceptable adverse change in the physical environment. This impact level does not require mitigation, even if feasible, under CEQA. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0-1 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS A significant impact would or may have a substantial adverse effect on the physical environment, but could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Impacts may also be considered potentially significant if the analysis cannot definitively conclude that an impact would occur with implementation of PLAN Hermosa. Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be provided, where feasible, to reduce the magnitude of significant or potentially significant impacts. A significant and unavoidable impact would or may cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no known feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, or implementation of feasible mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under CEQA, a project with significant and unavoidable impacts could proceed, but the City, as the lead agency, would be required to prepare a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, explaining why the City would proceed with the project despite potential for significant impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS If impacts are considered significant and it is determined that implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or avoid these impacts. This section also describes an impact's level of significance following mitigation. Impacts are then defined as either significant but mitigable or as significant and unavoidable. Significant but mitigable impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain significant either because feasible mitigation to reduce impacts is unavailable or because proposed mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 4.0.3 FORMAT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Throughout the discussion, impacts are identified numerically and sequentially. For example, impacts discussed in Section 4.1 are identified as 4.1-1, 4.1-2, and so on. Mitigation measures, where needed, are identified numerically to correspond to the number of the impact being reduced by the measure. For example, mitigation measure MM 4.1-1 would mitigate Impact 4.1-1. The format used to present the evaluation of impacts and mitigation measures is as follows: IMPACT 4.0-1 Impact Title. An impact summary heading appears before the impact discussion. The heading contains the impact number and title. The impact statement briefly summarizes the findings of the impact discussion below. The level of significance is included at the end of the summary heading. Levels of significance listed in this EIR (as described above) are no impact, less than significant, potentially significant, or significant. The impact discussion is contained in the paragraphs following the impact statement. The analysis c-ompofes-implementatlon-of-P-L-4N-Hermosa-tc)-exist-in- g-condit-ions-b-y • identifying federal, state, regional, and local regulations that would reduce or mitigate the impact; • identifying PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation programs that would reduce or mitigate the impact; and • describing the potential impact with implementation of applicable regulations and PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation programs. MITIGATION MEASURES After the impact discussion, if necessary, feasible mitigation measures are identified that would reduce the impact. If no mitigation is necessary or feasible, this conclusion is stated. PLAN Hermosa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0-2 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4A AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION This section evaluates the potential environmental impacts related to aesthetics from implementation of PLAN Hermosa. As described in Chapter 2.0, Introduction, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluates physical environmental impacts. As such, the analysis in this EIR focuses on the visual resources and characteristics of the public visual environment, that is, visual features, viewpoints, corridors, and other significant elements of the visual landscape which are accessible from public areas such as streets, beaches, parks, and plazas. The analysis provides an overview of public visual resources in the city, considers their relative significance to the visual environment, and identifies potential causes of adverse impacts to those resources that might arise from implementation of PLAN Hermosa, as well as the effectiveness of PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions to avoid significant impacts. Where warranted, the EIR includes measures to mitigate potential impacts. NOP Comments: No comments were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) addressing aesthetic resource concerns. Comments included written letters and oral comments provided at the NOP scoping meeting. 4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Visual character is the overall impression of a landscape created by its unique combination of visual features such as landform, vegetation, water, and structures. Scenic quality is a measure of degree to which these elements blend to create a landscape that is visually pleasing to a viewer. As such, viewer sensitivity informs the degree to which changes in visual quality may be considered significant. Generally, the key factors in determining the potential impacts on visual character and quality are based on overall visual change/contrast, dominance, and view blockage. An adverse visual impact may occur when a project (1) perceptibly and substantially changes the existing physical features of the landscape that are characteristic of the region or locale; (2) introduces new features to the physical landscape that are perceptibly uncharacteristic of the region or locale or that become visually dominant from common viewpoints; or (3) blocks or completely obscures scenic resources in the landscape. The degree of impact depends on how noticeable the adverse change might be to sensitive viewer groups. VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE REGION Hermosa Beach's visual character and visual resources reflect the community's regional setting. The city is located along the southern end of Santa Monica Bay. As such, it occupies a visible edge between the extensive urban landscape of the South Bay subregion and the entire Los Angeles Basin, and its boundary with the Pacific Ocean. This edge defines the dominant visual character of Hermosa Beach's environment. The city's position in the South Bay provides panoramic views of regionally significant visual features: Santa Monica Bay itself (the ocean and the bay's coastline), the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the south, and the more distant Santa Monica Mountains across the bay to the north. From the more inland and higher elevations of the city (in the Hermosa Hills and Eastside neighborhoods east of Pacific Coast Highway), the Los Angeles Basin and San Gabriel Mountains are visible. These easterly views, although less predominant than those along the coast, have regional significance and are among the valued visual resources in the community. Public views to these vistas, including viewpoints and view corridors, are significant visual resources and are discussed in greater detail below. In addition to these vistas, there is the edge itself, Hermosa's beach, which gives the city uninterrupted open space and visual expansiveness City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES along its entire western boundary. The beach, with its unobstructed vistas, is the destination of and visual reward for Hermosa Beach visitors. VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE CITY Urban land uses that currently contribute to the visual character of the city's built environment are primarily residential uses, which are distributed throughout the city, and commercial uses that are mostly located along Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Boulevard, and Pier Avenue. Architecture styles of development in the city vary and most buildings are low in stature, reflecting height restrictions that limit building heights to 25 to 35 feet, depending on zoning and location. The city's prominent open space areas include the beach, Hermosa Valley Greenbelt, and park and school sites such as South Park, Clark Stadium, Hermosa View School, Valley View School, and Valley Park. There are 19 parks in the city, including many small parkettes. The prevailing low -profile beach atmosphere and the availability of walking streets and small- scale east -west streets along the oceanfront provide a visual transparency experienced from major public thoroughfares such as Hermosa Avenue, Manhattan Avenue, and Monterey Boulevard. Visual transparency refers to the degree to which people can see or perceive what lies beyond the edge of a street or public space. More specifically it refers to the degree to which people can see or perceive human activity beyond the edge of a street or other public spaces (Ewing 2013). This visual permeability in the community's local urban landscape softens the urban/ocean edge and contributes to the beach town character of the community. While Hermosa Beach is well known for its sweeping views of natural resources, the area also includes numerous structures and buildings that are considered scenic resources. Some of the city's historic landmark structures are regionally distinctive, such as the Bijou Theatre, the Bank of America Building, and the Community Center. Historic resources in Hermosa Beach are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4 Cultural Resources, of this EIR. Aside from individual structures, scenic resources may also include a collection of buildings that are architecturally distinctive or potentially historic, well -manicured streetscapes such as Pier Avenue, and commercial corridors or districts. The areas identified as playing a key role in defining the city's visual character are described below. Downtown District The Downtown District is located in an area along Prier Avenue from Valley Drive to The Strand and on Hermosa Avenue. The district is predominantly characterized by commercial and visitor -serving uses, with a small amount of residential development. Street -oriented storefronts, frees and landscaped spaces; varying-orc-hite-cfur-alStylcs, and streetscape improvements contribute to the visual character of this area. In general, buildings are one to two stories tall and are located along the sidewalk with stepbacks on the upper levels. The predominant architectural style is that of a California beach town, with no officially designated styles. Most buildings are painted in light colors to reflect the sun. The district's landscaping comprises palm trees and low native scrubs in street medians. Ornate streetlights in an old-fashioned style line the major corridors, while on -street parking (both parallel and angled) lines several streets, including Pier Avenue. Landscaping, outdoor eating spaces, and streetscape features add to the pedestrian - oriented character of Pier Plaza in the Downtown District. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report August 2017 4.1-2 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Strand This oceanfront boardwalk traverses the length of the city from Herondo Street to 35th Street. Sandy beaches and the shoreline dominate the scenic views to the west of the boardwalk, while the area east of The Strand is characterized by one-, two-, and three-story residences as well as the Downtown District. These residences are designed and oriented to take advantage of the sweeping ocean views. There is minimal landscaping along The Strand, and no predominant architectural style or color. Most notable views are of the Pacific Ocean, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and the Santa Monica Mountains. Hermosa Valley Greenbelt The original Santa Fe Railway right-of-way was converted to a recreational use trail in the 1980s (Hermosa Beach Historical Society 2009). Today, this trail is known as the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt. It is one of the community's most highly used public spaces, second only to the beach. The landscaped trail extends the length of the city between Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive. North -facing view from The Strand. Lush landscaping and the jogging trail are the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) primary visual characteristics of the Greenbelt. Pacific Coast Highway traverses the city in a north -south direction and is located east (inland) of the Pacific Ocean and the Downtown District. In Hermosa Beach, PCH offers views of the Palos Verdes Peninsula but does not provide any views of the Pacific Ocean except via small view corridors at intersections. The highway is a major arterial with two to three lanes of traffic in each direction, serving mainly as a transportation corridor for through traffic. Land use along Pacific Coast Highway includes both commercial and residential, as well as some public facilities. Most buildings are one to three stories tall. The overall visual aspect of PCH along this stretch is of an urbanized and highly trafficked corridor. Residential and Commercial Areas Hermosa Beach consists of many distinct neighborhoods and commercial areas. PLAN Hermosa identifies nine residential neighborhoods with more or less distinct characteristics and five commercial corridors or districts (see Figure 4.1-1, Character Areas). The predominant land use in Hermosa Beach is residential, which accounts for approximately 67 percent of the city's total land area. The residential areas have no predominant architectural style, as many homes have been rebuilt over time. Most homes have small front yards, if any, and landscaping varies from grassy lawns to drought -tolerant xeriscapes. The architectural diversity of Hermosa Beach's distinct neighborhoods contributes to the visual character of the community, which can be summarized as low-key, predominantly residential and diverse. The city's public spaces —its streets and streetscapes, parks, plazas, and public buildings —create much of its urban form. Aside from parks and the beach, streets and sidewalks make up a large portion of the public realm in Hermosa Beach. In character and appearance, the streetscape defines the experience for street users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Streetscape amenities on Pier Avenue and the pedestrian mall of lower Pier Avenue are prominent features, along with other visually iconic structures and monuments such as the Hermosa Pier and the Bijou Theatre that also contribute to the city's visual character. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES �l� 1 � 1_k, 1 f ~ f tatttttM1i f t� PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report FIGURE 4.1-1 CHARACTER AREAS 4.1-4 hermosa beach character areas north end a a ■ hermosa view a ■ walk street 01 sand section volley ■ herondo ■ greenbelt hermosa hills ■ easiside ■� downtown `c ■� civic center cypress O ® aviation .o ■ pacific coast highway y . ci limits ;;l:l �' c coastal zone 0 400' Boo• N �r�rrr"°�""a�rr■ta o' + z- City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES SCENIC VISTAS/VIEW CORRIDORS A scenic vista is a high quality view from which the public can experience one or more significant visual features, a landscape, or an aesthetically pleasing viewshed. Scenic vistas are often available from elevated vantage points that offer panoramic or expansive views. Hermosa Beach does not have officially designated scenic vistas. Nonetheless, prominent public viewpoints and view corridors in the city provide long-range views of important scenic features: Santa Monica Bay, the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Los Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains. Pacific Ocean Public views of the Pacific Ocean from within the city can be described according to three general categories: (1) uninterrupted panoramic views; (2) major vistas or viewpoints; and (3) intermittent views. Uninterrupted public views of the ocean are available along the entire length of The Strand, from the beach, and from Hermosa Pier. These view locations are significant because of the high quality of the views (they are panoramic and include all of the major visually significant coastal features —Santa Monica Bay, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and the Santa Monica Mountains) and they are also locations of high public use. Major vistas of the ocean are also available from several public streets where the topography and surrounding structures do not obstruct the line of sight. In some cases, these viewpoints are located at relatively high elevations in the eastern half of the city; for example, the intersection of Prospect Avenue and 6th Street. Public views of the Pacific Ocean from north -south -trending streets in the city are generally more limited because existing development along the street frontage obstructs views. However, the ocean is visible at key points along major corridors including Pacific Coast Highway at Longfellow Avenue and along Aviation Boulevard at key intersections. From within the coastal half of the city, major public views of the ocean exist along Pier Avenue and on several east - west -trending streets such as 8th, 14th, 22nd, and 27th streets. For a typical viewer who is 5 to 6 feet in height, standing within 50 feet of a building that is 20 to 35 feet in height, the panoramic views that would qualify as scenic vistas or prominent viewpoints could be obstructed by the existing buildings. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the abundant small east -west streets, particularly between The Strand and Loma Drive/Morningside Drive, along most of the coastal length of the city offer a series of intermittent views to the ocean as one travels parallel to the coast on north -south -trending streets (Hermosa Avenue, Manhattan Avenue, and Monterey Boulevard). These east -west streets cumulatively provide visual transparency from the public streets to the ocean, an effect that contributes to the visual character of Hermosa Beach. Palos Verdes Peninsula and Santa Monica Mountains Public views of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the Santa Monica Mountains are unobstructed from The Strand, the beach, and the pier. Views of the Santa Monica Mountains are available from the extreme northwest corner of the city within the public right-of-way in the vicinity of Hermosa Avenue and 35th Street. Views of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are available along Pacific Coast Highway (framed by urban development on both sides of the corridor), on Aviation Boulevard, and from Prospect Avenue near 6th Street. Other locations offer intermittent views of the Peninsula (for example, from several points along Pier Avenue), but the most significant of these might be the view from Cypress Avenue because of the unique character and mix of activities and land use at this lower elevation in the city. Views of both the Peninsula and the Santa Monica Mountains serve as backgrounds from many minor viewpoints in the city. Most of these views are fragmented by existing urban development. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Los Angeles Basin and San Gabriel Mountains Public views of the Los Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains generally are from higher elevations in the eastern part of the city along east -west -trending streets. The best views are from Aviation Boulevard, the southern end of Prospect Avenue looking east, and 5th Street looking northeast (though framed by existing development along the roadway). The Los Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains serve as backgrounds for the city. Most views of these features are fragmented by existing urban development. PROMINENT PUBLIC VIEWS Figure 4.1-2, Prominent Public Viewpoints, identifies significant public viewpoints from which these features can be viewed. The viewpoints identified in Figure 4.1-2 are considered prominent based on four key criteria established by the City. 1) The view includes one or more of the five regionally significant features identified above. 2) The view is readily accessible to the public. 3) The view is panoramic, expansive, or a relatively unobstructed, high quality view. 4) The view contributes importantly to the visual environment of Hermosa Beach. These criteria, and the viewpoints identified in Figure 4.1-2, are considered in the impact assessment in this section. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-6 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES FIGURE 4.1-2 PROMINENT PUBLIC VIEWPOINTS 4.1-7 hermosa beach public view locations prominent public viewpoint ■ uninterrupted viewing areas city limits c— coastal zone 400' 800, N t �, Z„ PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES SHADE OR SHADOW Prolonged periods of shade and shadow during the middle of the day can adversely affect parks and other public gathering areas. Shade and shadow effects are limited in Hermosa Beach because of building height limits enforced by the City. Since most buildings in the planning area are less than 35 feet tall, the most common sources of prolonged shadows are natural topographic features and on a smaller scale, trees. Examples include shadows from the ridgeline along Loma Drive in the Valley Drive or Greenbelt areas or from landscape features and trees. LIGHT AND GLARE Artificial lighting can negatively affect the visual character of land uses, especially at night. Light pollution from urban sources can also adversely affect views of the night sky. Although the night sky above the Los Angeles Basin is already impacted by the region's expansive urban development, a few relatively unpolluted locales still exist. The western portion of the Santa Monica Mountains is a known dark sky viewing location that can be said to have regional significance because of its accessibility to the Los Angeles Basin and the relative rarity of dark sky viewing locations in the region. Significant sources of light pollution in the greater Los Angeles Basin that impact the night sky have the potential to contribute to the cumulative degradation of night sky viewing. Hermosa Beach contains various sources of light and glare that are typical of urban communities, such as streetlights along roadways and lights in parking lots, illuminated signs, lighted recreation facilities, landscape lighting, and light emitted from the interiors of residential and nonresidential buildings. Noncommercial sources of night lighting in Hermosa Beach include lighted sports fields, notably Clark Field, which is lit most evenings of the year. The greatest source of daytime glare in Hermosa Beach is specular reflection from the Pacific Ocean. This is a natural source, of course, and a dominant element of the Southern California coastal environment. On clear days, sunlight and its attendant glare saturates the sky unobstructed by intervening buildings or structures above 35 feet in height. This natural condition reflects the city's position on the urban edge with the Pacific Ocean. If adverse sources of daytime glare exist, they are localized and small-scale, and most likely result from singular instances of highly reflective surfaces (e.g... windows and parked vehicles) present in the man- made environment. Because most buildings in the city are at or below 35 feet in height, glare effects from structures are limited to the immediate vicinity of the individual buildings. SENSITIVE VIEWER GROUPS Patenlidly-tmpercfed-viewers carrtre-categorizerd-into-groups-of-shared-sensitiviiy10- changes -in the existing scenic quality of a landscape. Viewer sensitivity (or public concern) for the scenic quality of a landscape or particular view is informed by the activity a user is engaged in at the time something is visible. For example, commuting in heavy traffic can distract many viewers from aspects of the visual environment, while activities such as pleasure driving can encourage viewers to look at view components more closely and for a longer period of time. Viewer sensitivity considerations include the number of viewers, duration of exposure, and degree of public interest in a particular view. In the city, highly sensitive viewers are generally assumed to include residents, tourists, and recreationists traveling through Hermosa Beach. Less sensitive viewer groups are assumed to include commuters and viewers from commercial or industrial -type land uses. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report August 2017 4.1-8 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Residents are considered to be the most sensitive viewer groups because of the duration of exposure and their degree of interest in the view. Their exposure is considered long term and their interests in the view are considered to relate to both the visual quality and the character of the area. Tourists also have high sensitivity, in that they generally visit the city to observe the views as well as to enjoy the city's recreational opportunities. Commuters and viewers from commercial or industrial -type land uses are considered less sensitive viewer groups because of the short duration of the view and their trip purposes. Such users usually pay less attention to visual quality and character and are exposed for short times to vistas and other visual characteristics. 4.1.3 REGULATORY SETTING Several relevant state and local laws, regulations, and policies relate to visual resources. They provide the regulatory framework for addressing visual impacts. The regulatory framework for aesthetics is fully discussed in detail in Appendix C-2. Key regulations applicable either directly or indirectly to visual resources are presented below. FEDERAL No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to visual resources apply to the planning area. STATE • Caltrans Scenic Highway Program: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program protects and enhances the natural scenic beauty of the state's highways and corridors through special conservation treatment. There are no officially designated scenic highways within the city boundaries (Caltrans 2011). • California Coastal Act of 1976: The California Coastal Act of 1976 and the California Coastal Commission, the state's landmark coastal protection law and planning agency, consider scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas as a protected resource of public importance: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. (California Coastal Act Section 30251). See Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR for a discussion of PLAN Hermosa and consistency with the California Coastal Act. REGIONAL AND LOCAL City of Hermosa Beach 1981 Local Coastal Program: The Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) component addresses aesthetic considerations of design and development in the Coastal Zone. CLUP goals and objectives associated with coastal recreational access and development and design include preserving and enhancing coastal overviews and key view point areas. Visual policies and programs in the Coastal Development and Design portion of the CLUP include the following: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES • Height restrictions for residential and commercial uses (which are now contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance) to protect overview and viewshed qualities. • Condominium project design consistent with the city's character. • Implementation of a design review process. • Establishment of a Downtown Plan. • Landscaping provisions for The Strand. The Local Implementation Plan has not yet been certified; therefore, the Coastal Commission retains authority to review and issue coastal development permits for development in the Coastal Zone. PLAN Hermosa is intended to result in an adopted and certified LCP. • City of Hermosa 1979 General Plan: The current General Plan includes the following policies and programs (summarized) that address visual resources: - Conservation Element Policy 6 - No additional structures should be placed on the beach (with the exception of restrooms). - Urban Design Element Policy 1 - Maintain the present scale of the city. • Program 2 - Development of visual design standards. • Program 3 - Eliminate garish or degrading signs. • Program 4 - Restore and maintain residential uses in older sections of city. City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance: The City's Zoning Ordinance (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Title 17) addresses aesthetic considerations of development. While the Zoning Ordinance sets development standards for parking, building heights (maximum 35 feet), setbacks, density, lot coverage, open space requirements, and signs which collectively contribute to the visual character of the community, the Municipal Code does not include an explicit viewshed protection ordinance related to the protection of private views. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes the following requirements: • Requirements that condominium project design be in harmony and not a major disruption to established character of the neighborhood (Section 17.22.130). • Commercial lighting standards to avoid lighting impacts (Section 17.26.050). • Screening of outdoor storage and activities for commercial uses (Section 17.26.050) . • Landscaping and setback buffer standards for commercial projects that adjoin residential areas (Section 17.28.030). • Discretionary review and approval of precise development plans for development (except for single family and renovations less than 1,500 square in size) (Chapter 17.58). 4.1.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE For purposes of this EIR, impacts on visual resources are considered significant if adoption and implementation of PLAN Hermosa would: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the city or its surroundings. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-10 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 4) Create new shade or shadow in a manner that substantially affects outdoor recreation facilities or other public gathering areas. 5) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. ANALYSIS APPROACH The discussion below addresses the potential for future changes to the public visual environment to be significant and adverse, based on the preceding assessment of prominent visual resources, current (baseline) conditions and the significance thresholds identified above. The impact assessment that follows addresses each of the five significant impact thresholds in turn and considers potential impacts of the plan in its entirety, including its proposed new policies as well as the current General Plan policies and zoning regulations that would be carried forward as part of PLAN Hermosa. The impact assessment also considers standard conditions of approval and current regulations of other agencies that would be enforced during the implementation of PLAN Hermosa and that would reduce or avoid visual impacts. PLAN HERMOSA POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The following PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions address visual resources either directly or indirectly. Policies Land Use + Design Element • 1.1 Diverse and distributed land use pattern. Strive to maintain the fundamental pattern of existing land uses, preserving residential neighborhoods, while providing for enhancement of corridors and districts in order to improve community activity and identity. • 1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. • 1.8 Respond to unique characteristics. Enhance the unique character and identity of the city's neighborhoods, districts, and corridors through land use and design decisions. Allow policies and programs to be focused on each unique character area of the city. • 2.5 Neighborhood preservation. Preserve and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods by avoiding or abating the intrusion of disruptive, nonconforming buildings and uses. • 2.7 Context -sensitive design. Wherever feasible, orient residential buildings to address streets, public spaces, or shared private spaces and consider the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure. • 2.8 Neighborhood transitions. Encourage that new development provide appropriate transitions in scale, building type and density between different land use designations. • 5.1 Scale and massing. Consider the scale of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. • 5.3 Locally appropriate materials. Require architectural designs, building materials and landscape design to respect and relate to the local climate, topography, history, and building practices. • 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1-11 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 10.8 Incentives and technical assistance. Provide expert technical assistance to owners of potentially eligible and designated historic properties with tools and incentives to maintain historic resources. Parks + Open Space Element • 5.1 Identify public coastal views. Identify the Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas from which coastal scenic vistas can be observed. 5.2 Visual character. Accommodate economic growth and new buildings in a way that preserves the visual character of the community. 5.3 Building site and design. Massing, height, and orientation of new development adjacent to Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas shall be evaluated and, to the extent reasonable, new development will be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public coastal views to and along the ocean and scenic areas. • 5.4 Exceptions to protect views. Consider exceptions to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards to minimize additional obstructions to the Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas while providing projects the same development privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity. • 5.5 Landscape design. Consider public access to public views and vistas, and encourage landscape design that protects or enhances those views. 5.6 Signage and infrastructure. Encourage signage, infrastructure, and utilities that do not block or detract from views of scenic vistas. • 5.7 Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline. 7.4 Beach structures. Restrict buildings and structures on the beach with regard to size and number consistent with current access, safety, and beach use. • 7.6 Children's recreational equipment. Limit children's recreational equipment to slides, swings, and climbing apparatus of a non -obstructive design. Locate near major or primary entrances to the beach, at least 100 feet from the Strand wall. Infrastructure Element 1.7 Aesthetic and urban form. Require infrastructure and infrastructure improvements that are aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the scenic character of the surrounding area. Implementation Actions Land Use + Design Element LAND USE-3. Include provisions within the Zoning Code to avoid significant shadow impacts from new structures onto public recreational areas, parks or other public gathering places consistent with industry standards for evaluating shade and shadow impacts. Parks + Open Space Element PARKS-10. Develop and apply evaluation procedures for development projects that have the potential to substantially obstruct, substantially interfere, or substantially degrade Prominent Public Viewpoints or Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. Evaluation requirements, criteria, and provisions to allow exceptions to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards for projects with the potential to substantially obstruct, interfere or degrade Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-12 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Viewing Areas shall be incorporated into the review process for Precise Development Plans under Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: - Projects located adjacent to and within the directional arrow of a Prominent Public Viewpoint, or within the Uninterrupted Viewing Areas, as identified in PLAN Hermosa Figure 5.3, shall be evaluated to determine the potential to substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from Prominent Public Viewpoints, or the Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. - The evaluation will be based on quantitative criteria established and adopted by the City to evaluate potential impacts to visual quality, landform quality, community character, and view quality. - Projects that are determined to substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from these public views shall be designed to reasonably minimize the substantial obstruction, interruption or detraction to views from the Prominent Public Viewpoints or Uninterrupted Viewing Areas, which may include an exception to setback, open space, landscaping, or other development standards. The purpose of the exception would be to accommodate the bulk of the building in a manner that minimizes the impact to the public view while providing the property owner the same development privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity. - Landscaping material shall be used to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast from Prominent Public Viewpoints. • PARKS-11. Protect public views of the Pacific Ocean by establishing and applying requirements for public works and infrastructure projects such as: - Locate new and relocated utilities underground when possible. Place and screen all other utilities to minimize public visibility. - Replace automobile -scale streetlights with shorter, pedestrian -scale streetlights where safe and appropriate. - Fences, walls, and landscaping shall not block views of scenic areas from designated viewpoints, scenic roads, parks, beaches, and other public viewing areas. - Hardscape elements such as retaining walls, cut-off walls, abutments, bridges, and culverts shall incorporate veneers, texturing, and colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. • PARKS-12. Minimize nighttime light pollution by establishing and applying the following development review requirements: - Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity fixtures, shielded (full cutoff), and downcast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture) concealed to the maximum feasible extent so that no light source is directly visible from public viewing areas, there is no glare or spill beyond the property lines and the lamp bulb is not directly visible from within any residential unit. • PARKS-13. Minimize the negative aesthetic impacts of signs by establishing or revising and applying the following design requirements: - Enforce appropriate limits on height, size, design, and materials of signs. - Prohibit signs other than traffic or public safety signs that would obstruct views to the ocean, beach, parks, or other scenic areas. - Enforce sign maintenance controls. - Continue restrictions on the use of lights and moving parts in signs, billboards, and rooftop signs. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1-13 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental impact Report 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT 4.1-1 Would PLAN Hermosa Cause Adverse Effects on Scenic Vistas and Viewsheds? Future actions under PLAN Hermosa have the potential to encroach on views from prominent public viewpoints. Future actions also have the potential to degrade the visual quality of scenic vistas, through the introduction of incongruous features to the viewshed. However, PLAN Hermosa also includes policies and implementation actions that direct future discretionary projects to identify, evaluate, and to the extent reasonable avoid the substantial obstruction, interference or degradation of scenic vistas through the offering of exceptions to development standards that will allow for siting the project in a manner that avoids impacting scenic vistas. This impact would be less than significant because development under PLAN Hermosa would comply with the evaluation and design process to avoid adverse effects on scenic vistas.. As indicated in Figure 4.1-1, multiple public view corridors in the city provide views of the Pacific Ocean, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Los Angeles Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains. While PLAN Hermosa does not specifically propose or entitle any development project or public project, it would provide for and apply to such projects subsequent to the adoption of the plan. Subsequent projects under PLAN Hermosa could result in the alteration of these view corridors by partially blocking the public view and/or introducing a new feature that dominates the view. Examples include building features such as awnings, facades, walls, and similar items. PLAN Hermosa outlines the community's vision for proposed development in each of the city's distinctive zones and identifies policies and actions to reduce impacts to these public view corridors. For example, implementation actions PARKS-10 and 11 require discretionary design review for new development and public works projects based on specific criteria to be established in the Zoning Ordinance to evaluate scenic vistas. As such, utilities would be located underground when possible, and fences and walls would not block views from designated viewpoints, scenic roads, or other public viewing areas. Parks + Open Space Element Policy 5.1 states the intent to identify scenic vistas. Public vistas would also be protected through proposed implementation actions, as listed above. In addition, the City's Zoning Ordinance includes height restrictions that prohibit buildings from exceeding 35 feet, require screening of commercial outdoor storage and activities from public views (Section 17.26,050), and require development projects to be reviewed through the City's precise development plan process (Chapter 17.58). The policies and actions as revised related to public views are designed to provide more specificity on the expectation and process for identifying, evaluating, and-addressing-p-a en#ial impacts to scenic vistas in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The greater level of specificity contained within the policies and implementation actions further helps to appropriately guide City staff and decision makers in the future to objectively and consistently and reasonably evaluate and mitigate impacts to scenic vistas, and provide the opportunity for setback, open space, landscaping or other relief to properties that may otherwise substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from a scenic vista. This allows the property owner to minimize the impact to a public view while providing the owner the same development privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity (similar to a variance). The specific exception to be applied to each project will be evaluated on a project level to determine its appropriateness and compatibility with the neighborhood and the list of available exceptions will be specified in the zoning ordinance. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report August 2017 4.1-14 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Through the public hearing process, the community and commissioners have had an opportunity to synthesize PLAN Hermosa Figure 5.3, which shows the proposed Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas. Based on community and commissioner input, the Figure has been revised to remove two sites that do not meet the criteria for Prominent Public Views. The two views deleted include 8th Street at Loma Drive and El Oeste Drive. The 8th/Loma location can be deleted because the view is already surrounded by properties that have been developed close to or at the maximum extent allowed and therefore, future development during the life of the plan will not further impact the view beyond the existing development. The El Oeste viewpoint can be deleted because, while it presents a highly intact uninterrupted view, it does not meet the prominent viewpoint criteria of having a large number of public viewers. This location is at the end of a dead end residential street where the general public does not typically access, pass or congregate. Therefore, it would be unlikely to have a large number of public viewers. The language incorporated into the policies and actions has been changed such that properties adjacent to, rather than within 50 feet of, the Prominent Public Views and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas will be required to evaluate and reasonably mitigate any substantial impact to a public view. Additionally, portions of Implementation Action PARKS-12 have been removed because of their specificity to appropriate colors and textures and the portions of the actions pertaining to public works projects have been incorporated into PARKS- ] 1. To specify appropriate colors or textures to private property owners would go against a long- standing community policy against judging or dictating design. These language changes are also appropriate because the 50 foot requirement, as well as the requirements for specific screening methods or use of certain materials may not be appropriate in all situations and do not allow for any site specific flexibility. Additionally, the language was too precise for policy language and implementation actions (and for the originally proposed mitigation measure). These types of details are better worked out through the implementation process and development of the ordinance. In some cases 50 feet may be too far, and in others it may not be far enough. There are site specific conditions like width of the road, setback requirements, and building height limits (vary from 25-35 feet) that may require variation in the distance needed to analyze impacts to views. It is further noted that the changes to the policies and implementation actions related to public views achieve the some purpose as proposed Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, that the potential impact to scenic vistas is adequately mitigated to a level that is less than significant, and that no new significant impacts to Aesthetics have been identified based on these changes. Mitigation Measures None Required. IMPACT 4.1-2 Would PLAN Hermosa Have Adverse Effects on Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway? There are no designated state scenic highways in or near Hermosa Beach. However, PLAN Hermosa directs the City to beautify and enhance Pacific Coast Highway and would guide development and reuse projects in a manner that is consistent with the existing visual character of Pacific Coast Highway. Therefore PLAN Hermosa would have a less than significant impact. Scenic resources can include man-made or natural features, viewpoints, or viewsheds. They can include visually significant features such as rocks, trees, and historic buildings, particularly if those features are within a state scenic highway. There are no designated state scenic highways in or near Hermosa Beach. In its current state, Pacific Coast Highway's only significance as a scenic resource is its public views to the Pacific Ocean and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As noted in the City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-15 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES discussion above, significant public vistas from Pacific Coast Highway would be protected through proposed Policy 5.1 and implementation actions PARKS-10 and 11. Potential impacts on other scenic vistas are also addressed in the discussion above. Impacts to other scenic resources (such as iconic structures and visual permeability to the ocean) are addressed in the discussion of Impact 4.1-3 below. Impacts to historic resources (which may contribute significantly to the visual character of the community) are addressed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the EIR. With impacts on scenic vistas addressed by Impact 4.1-1 and on cultural resources addressed in Section 4.4, PLAN Hermosa would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Mitigation Measures None required. IMPACT 4.1-3 Would PLAN Hermosa Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings? PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that would not adversely alter the existing land use pattern or visual character of the city. This would be a less than significant impact. Hermosa Beach identifies itself as a small beach town, where visual character is defined by its coastal location, diverse residential neighborhoods, and public open spaces, including lower Pier Avenue, the beach, the pier, and The Strand. PLAN Hermosa outlines future visions for the city's distinctive areas, which include neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, as outlined in Table 4.1-1 (City of Hermosa Beach Existing Visual Character and Future Vision). TABLE 4.1-1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND FUTURE VISION Existing Visual Character Future Vision Neighborhoods North End Neighborhood The North End is a well-defined neighborhood with a The intent is to preserve building form and scale and range of low- and medium -density residential maintain neighborhood connectivity and access to nearby development with centralized neighborhood commercial commercial services. Buildings should orient toward the walk goods and services. streets to create a similar -scale and orientation of buildings for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The street frontages from driveways and curb cuts should be preserved to maintain the walkable qualities offered by the com act grid network of this neighborhood. Hermosa View Neighborhood - This neighborhood is perched high on a hill, with a The intent is to preserve building form, orientation, and scale dramatic rise in slope moving north from Gould Avenue, and to retain the unique streetscape with wide parkways and creating a separate, distinct single-family residential uninterrupted sidewalks. The low -density residential enclave. development pattern of this neighborhood should be maintained through the retention of larger lot sizes, building orientation toward the street, and wider setbacks that provide room for parkways and sidewalks. Walk Street Nei hborhood The Walk Street neighborhood currently provides a The intent is to maintain the high quality pedestrian range of beachside residential development and connections through the walk streets and retain the form, neighborhood commercial services within a linear street scale, and orientation of buildings in this area by designing network. The walk streets that provide beach access from buildings that take advantage of the opportunities for Hermosa Avenue out to The Strand are a feature uni ue outdoor living. PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report August 2017 4.1-16 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Existing Visual Character Future Vision to this beachfront residential area. Sand Section Neighborhood Today, the Sand Section neighborhood accommodates a The intent is to enhance multimodal connectivity and access range of residential development types, with while preserving the building form, scale, and orientation in neighborhood commercial services. The abundance of this neighborhood. Through new multimodal connections, small, pedestrian -friendly blocks gives this area its charm convenient access to community parks and the Greenbelt is and intimate sense of community. provided and helps to maintain the compact urban format and highly connected street network of this neighborhood. Valley Neighborhood The Valley neighborhood includes low -density, single- The intent is to improve key pedestrian thoroughfares that family homes between key community facilities. The enhance connectivity and access while preserving the single - average density for this area is roughly 10 dwelling units family development pattern of this area. Buildings should per acre, with parcel sizes ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 retain larger setbacks and lower scale and massing, and new square feet. The Valley Greenbelt runs the length of this sidewalks should be added to contribute to a complete area, and Valley School and Valley Park are beneficial pedestrian network. amenities to residents in this neighborhood. Herondo Neighborhood The Herondo neighborhood currently accommodates The intent is to preserve the scale and building form of this the city's higher -density and larger -format residential neighborhood and maintain connections and access to development. Multiple connections to nearby nearby amenities. To ensure a diverse range of housing neighborhoods, community parks, and the Greenbelt are formats and building types, this area will be protected for provided throughout the neighborhood. larger -format apartment complexes and townhouses. Permeability through the large apartment blocks should continue to be improved, allowing residents to walk to the Greenbelt and the beach. Greenbelt Neighborhood The Greenbelt neighborhood offers a range of small- The intent is to maintain the building scale and form of this scale residential development types and provides nearby neighborhood, while enhancing access to local access to commercial services along PCH. Single-family neighborhood -serving commercial uses. Neighborhood homes and duplexes currently coexist side by side. commercial uses and amenities should be added to serve the needs of nearby residents. Hermosa Hills Neighborhood The Hermosa Hills area transitions from high- and The intent is to improve key pedestrian thoroughfares to medium -density uses adjacent to PCH and lower -density enhance connectivity and access while preserving the single - single -family uses closer to Prospect Avenue. House family development pattern of this area. Many streets in this forms are generally small in this area, with small to neighborhood should be enhanced with new sidewalks to moderate front and side setbacks, and many streets are create a complete pedestrian network. closed to through traffic next to PCH. Eastside Neighborhood The Eastside neighborhood accommodates single-family The intent is to preserve building form, orientation, and scale residential development types and includes Hermosa and to retain the quiet nature and unique streetscape of this View School and multiple neighborhood parks. In terms area. Many streets in this neighborhood should be enhanced of street activity levels, this neighborhood is one of the with new sidewalks to create a complete pedestrian network. quietest areas of the community. Districts Downtown District The Downtown District is the heart of social and The intent is to enhance the building form and orientation commercial activity in Hermosa Beach, serving as a and to maintain the pedestrian realm along Pier Avenue centralized location for social gatherings and the while transforming the realm on Hermosa Avenue. The recreational activities of residents and visitors. Pier Plaza Downtown District will continue to offer an array of uses for !serves as a po2ular venue for outdoor events and dining, residents and visitors, and any new buildings should pay City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1-17 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Existing Visual Character Future Vision connecting Downtown to the beach, the pier, and The close attention to and contribute to the high quality Strand. The "pedestrian scramble" at the intersection of pedestrian environment provided throughout Downtown. Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue is a unique pedestrian amenity that reinforces the pedestrian -oriented nature of Downtown. Civic Center District At the physical center of town, the Civic Center area is The intent is to transform the building orientation and design the civic hub of services and activities for the community. in the Civic Center, while enhancing the streetscape and The Civic Center provides efficient and accessible circulation of all modes and users. The Civic Center facilities services to the community, but is in need of will be modernized to accommodate the range of functions modernization, repairs, and additional space. and services provided by the City, and will be expanded to provide consolidated parking facilities in well -designed or underground parking structures to serve commercial uses both along Pacific Coast Highway and in Downtown. Streetscape enhancements will provide an important connection between the main thoroughfares of Pacific Coast Hi hwa , Downtown, and the residential neighborhoods. Cypress District 'The Cypress District currently includes a range of The intent is to transform both the building design and professional design, light manufacturing, and orientation as well as the public realm and streetscape within warehousing uses and is home to many of the locally the Cypress District. This area is the creative, production, and renowned surfboard shapers. The City operations yard light industrial center of Hermosa Beach where ideas, spaces, occupies a large portion of this area. and creativity are easily shared. The Cypress District includes a variety of flexible use spaces, co -working offices, and creative or "maker" industries. Corridors Aviation Corridor The Aviation Boulevard Corridor serves as the primary'The intent is to transform the building design, form, and entry point into Hermosa Beach. There are currently a orientation while enhancing the streetscape and access for variety of commercial retail, office, and auto -oriented pedestrians and bicyclists in this area. The area should be uses along the corridor. transformed into a walkable, multi -use, active commercial corridor with ground -floor uses such as retail, restaurants, and personal services to serve the daily needs of residents east of PCH and provide artistic and cultural services to the entire community. Enhanced streetscapes with parkettes or outdoor space, paired with new commercial uses, should help Ito activate the street. PCH Corridor The PCH corridor serves as the primary entry point into The intent is to enhance building design and form and Hermosa Beach, as well as a pass -through corridor transform streetscapes and gateways to serve pedestrians between Manhattan Beach and the Palos Verdes and improve vehicular circulation. The PCH corridor will be a Peninsula. There should be a variety of commercial retail, multi -use commercial corridor with key activity nodes and office, residential, and auto -oriented uses along the iconic architecture to activate the entryways. The corridor corridor. connects the community with adjacent neighborhoods and cities. A regular rhythm of storefronts and streetscape enhancements should provide a welcoming atmosphere that is enticing to shoppers and pleasant to walk along. New gateway monuments and signage should be added to promote Hermosa Beach's identity. Consolidated parking facilities are added at ke locations along the corridor. Source: City of Hermosa Beach 2015 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-18 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES The potential for visual character to change significantly under PLAN Hermosa is largely a function of how changes to the built environment are regulated and shaped by future policies to protect the community's visual character. Protecting visual character does not prohibit changes to the visual environment. However, the changes that occur would not significantly degrade or eliminate key elements that contribute to visual character, and new elements introduced into the built environment are not incongruous to the point of degrading the local visual environment. Visual Transparency As described above in the Scenic Vistas/View Corridors subsection, visual access to the ocean is an important characteristic of much of Hermosa Beach, particularly in the portions of the city west of Loma Drive/Morningside Drive. This visual access is made available to the public through the visual transparency provided by many small and closely spaced east -west -trending streets offering views of the ocean. Current zoning in this portion of the city consists of R-1, R-2, R-2B, R-3, C-1, and C-2 designations. Within this range of residential and commercial zones, a minimum front yard setback of 5 feet is required (or 10 percent of the lot depth, in an R-1 zone). PLAN Hermosa does not propose changing the current setback requirement in these districts. Residential building heights are limited to 25 to 30 feet, with commercial building heights limited to a maximum of 35 feet, provisions that would also remain unchanged under PLAN Hermosa. Many of the commercial height limits were established through voter initiatives and would require a citywide vote of the people to change the height limits. The continued regulation of land uses in accordance with these standards is a mechanism for preventing significant encroachment and for the protection of minor view corridors present along east -west coastal streets. Although future actions under PLAN Hermosa would include remodels and reuse development projects, these key elements of the City's current and future development standards in these zones would reduce impacts on the characteristic visual permeability that currently exists. This protection would be reinforced by proposed Policy 5.3 of the Parks + Open Space Element. Potential impacts of utilities and other public infrastructure projects are addressed in implementation action PARKS-11 . The established development standards that would be carried forward with PLAN Hermosa, along with proposed Policy 5.3 and implementation action PARKS-11, would avoid significant adverse impacts on visual transparency in the coastal area of the city. Visual Character of Neighborhoods, Corridors, and Districts As outlined above, PLAN Hermosa's intent is to maintain and enhance the city's visual character through appropriate building massing, scale, and size. Adoption and implementation of PLAN Hermosa would not substantially alter any of the residential neighborhoods or areas of the city, but may alter certain areas near Downtown and The Strand, through new development and streetscape. PLAN Hermosa policies are meant to preserve the city's character, including those resources that are designated landmarks or architecturally distinctive. For example, Goal 5 is intended to specifically retain the city's character as a small beach town. Further, Land Use + Design Element Policy 1.6 would require the City to consider new development's compatibility with the existing scale and context, and Parks + Open Space Element Policy 5.2 accommodates new buildings in a way that reflects the visual character of the community. None of the provisions of PLAN Hermosa would alter current land use patterns, height restrictions, or compatibility and buffering requirements currently established in the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., Sections 17.22.130, 17.26.050, and 17.28.030). PLAN Hermosa policies and implementation actions identified in this section implement and expand current General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policy provisions for the protection of the city's visual character identified above in subsection 4.1.3, Regulatory Setting. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-19 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Future land uses consistent with PLAN Hermosa would only allow new development to occur within the city in a manner that enhances and preserves Hermosa Beach's existing visual character. While changes to and demolition of certain buildings may have an impact on the cultural significance of a resource, it does not necessarily mean that these alterations would have an impact as an aesthetic resource. Provided that new structures are consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area based on the PLAN Hermosa policies and descriptions of the character area, it is possible for future development projects to impact the significance of a cultural resource but have a less than significant impact to aesthetic resources. Additionally, future development projects would be evaluated for form, line, and massing in relation to the neighborhood or adjacent structures or background as part of the City's design review process and for compliance with the Municipal Code. Compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.20.020, for instance, would ensure that the proposed structure's style and pitch of the roof, mass and bulk, and architectural appearance (e.g., type, style, and shape of the structure and the proposed exterior materials) match the neighborhood's existing character. In addition, Municipal Code Section 17.53.020(c) encourages proposed developments near historic structures to incorporate complementary contemporary design and construction. Land Use + Design Element Policies 1.6, 1.8, and 2.7 would also require new developments to be compatible with surrounding development, as well as enhance existing character and be sensitive to context. Implementation action LAND USE-2 directs the City to update the development standards within the Zoning Code to illustrate and articulate the appropriate building form, scale, and massing for each established character area in accordance with those key features and characteristics to ensure that the overall visual character of the neighborhoods, centers, and districts is preserved. This action would apply to individual neighborhoods and character areas as identified in Figure 4.1-1 and in Table 4.1-1, as it would apply citywide. The proposed implementation action establishes the appropriate mechanism for developing zoning standards that would prevent significant degradation of the built environment's visual character. As such, implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and programs would reduce the impacts associated with visual character and visual sensitivity to a less than significant level because the City would implement development standards that require attention to and consistency with the surrounding area in form, line, massing, and existing visual character and identity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation (Measures None required. IMPACT 4.1-4 Would PLAN Hermosa Create New Shade or Shadow in a Manner That Substantially Affects Outdoor Recreation Facilities or Other Public Gathering Areas? P-L-A-N-Hermosa- would -allow development -or-reuse-pr-0je-t-in-a-manner where new sources of shade or shadow may reach outdoor recreation facilities or public gathering areas. However, the voter -approved height limits effectively restrict the number of areas in which shade or shadow may have an adverse effect but do not eliminate all potential sources. This impact would be less than significant. The length and direction of shadows cast from buildings and other structures are a function of building height and sun angle. Sun angle is, in turn, a function of latitude, season, and time of day. In Hermosa Beach, because of its latitude in the northern hemisphere, the sun casts shadows only on the north side of structures. Shadows move clockwise during the day, beginning in a northwesterly direction (as the sun rises in the southeast) and rotating to a northeasterly direction (as the sun sets in the southwest). Shadow length changes dramatically during the day, with its greatest lengths occurring just after dawn and just before dusk, with a PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-20 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES minimum at noon when the sun is nearly directly overhead. In the winter months, shadows are longer, as the sun shifts south relative to the earth, culminating in the longest shadows on the winter solstice (December 21). The summer solstice (June 21) is the time of year when the sun's shadow is shortest. In between the two solstices, the sun angle and its shadows range between the two extremes of the winter and summer solstices. Examples of shadow lengths for Hermosa Beach's latitude and for a 35-foot-tall structure are presented in Table 4.1-2 (Shadow Lengths in Hermosa Beach). TABLE 4.1-2 SHADOW LENGTHS IN HERMOSA BEACH Shadow Lengths for 35-Foot Structure (in feet) Time of Year 10 AM Noon 2 PM March 20 (Spring Equinox) 49 26 26 June 21 (Summer Solstice) 29 10 11 September 22 (Autumn Equinox) 44 25 27 December 21 (Winter Solstice) 69 55 74 Source: suncolc.org 2016 Under current zoning, the maximum allowed building height in Hermosa Beach is 35 feet. The shadow lengths in Table 4.1-2 therefore present seasonal and diurnal lengths for a worst -case condition. The distances in the table suggest that a building of 35-foot height would cast a shadow that would extend beyond the property limits of its parcel, given the relatively small size of most parcels in Hermosa Beach. In residential areas where building setbacks are usually 5 feet or less, a 35-foot building would likely cast a shadow onto one or more adjacent properties. For purposes of this EIR, the City considers shadow impacts to be significant and adverse if they intrude extensively into a public open space, such as a park, plaza, greenbelt, or walk street, for a prolonged period of time. Other shadow effects, such as shadows that extend onto private properties, may raise important planning or design considerations, but they do not relate to the public environment. The City's Zoning Ordinance addresses potential shadow effects on private properties for proposed structures above 30 feet in height in areas where the normally allowed building height is 30 feet or less but adjacent structures that pre -date current zoning exceed the current limit. For a significant shadow impact to occur, a new structure would have to be sited at a location that is adjacent to a public open space area. The adjacent open space would have to be north of the proposed structure and the structure would have to be near enough to impact the open space area significantly during the greater part of the sunlit day, that is, between the hours of 10 AM and 2 PM. The representative shadow lengths shown in Table 4.1-2 suggest that the adjacent open space would have to be within at least 40 feet of the proposed structure for a significant shadow encroachment to occur. This assumes that the proposed structure is the maximum allowed building height of 35 feet. There are very few locations in the city where these conditions might occur. One such area is the neighborhood just south of Clark Field. Under current conditions, this neighborhood is occupied by two- and three-story residential buildings, which likely cast a shadow during the early morning and late afternoon hours onto some portion of the field, although the effect would extend to cover less than 20 percent of the field area (Clark Field is approximately 450 feet in length) within the hours of peak park sunlight or of peak park use. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-21 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES PLAN Hermosa does not propose any changes to the current height limits. Implementation action LAND USE-3 indicates that the City would develop provisions in the zoning code that ensure avoidance of significant shadow impacts from new structures onto public recreational areas, parks or other public gathering places during the hours of 10 AM to 2 PM. Any future project that would be developed under PLAN Hermosa would be required to comply with this regulation. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. IMPACT 4.1-5 Would PLAN Hermosa Create New Sources of Light or Glare? PLAN Hermosa would guide development and reuse projects in a manner that could create new sources of glare, skyglow, and spillover lighting. However, PLAN Hermosa also includes specific policies and implementation actions that minimize adverse effects related to new sources of light and glare. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. The city is primarily built out, with existing sources of daytime glare and nighttime light. Development and other future actions under PLAN Hermosa have the potential to introduce new sources of daytime glare and increase nighttime lighting and illumination levels through intensification of development. Lighting impacts can be identified according to three categories: • Glare - Intense light that shines directly or is reflected from a surface into a person's eyes. • "Skyglow"/Nighttime Illumination - Artificial lighting from urbanized sources in sufficient quantity to cause lighting of the nighttime sky and reduction of visibility of stars and other astronomical features. • "Spillover" Lighting - Artificial lighting that spills over onto adjacent properties, which could interrupt sleeping patterns or cause other nuisances to neighboring residents. The main source of introduced daytime glare is sunlight reflected from structures with reflective surfaces such as windows or glass and metal used as building materials. The amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight, which can be more acute at sunrise and sunset because the angle of the sun is lower at these times. Glare impacts are best avoided through careful selection of building materials and consideration of the site -specific context in which new structures or remodels are proposed, relative to sun angles and surrounding uses. The likelihood of significant glare impacting public spaces (such as the plaza of lower Pier Avenue) as ❑ result -o-f_P_LAN_Her_mos-a ancLits KzoJicies_and-acflons is low and can be addressed through provisions proposed under implementation action LAND USE-3. Potential sources of new and increased nighttime lighting and illumination include, but are not limited to, lighting associated with new development or remodels (of any land use type), lights associated with vehicular travel (e.g., car headlights), street lighting, parking lot lights, and security -related lighting. Increased nighttime lighting and illumination can result in adverse effects in the form of spillover onto adjacent properties and nighttime skyglow impacts. Subsequent development would be subject to existing City development and design standards set forth in the City's Municipal Code. Section 17.26.050 of the current Municipal Code requires any lighting provided for commercial outdoor dining uses, unless exempted by a Conditional Use Permit, to be extinguished no later than 11:00 PM in the C-3 zone and by 10:00 PM in zones that allow similar uses. It also requires that the lighting be high efficiency, the minimum intensity necessary, fully shielded (full cutoff) and downcast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report August 2017 4.1-22 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES of the fixture), not create glare or spill beyond the property lines, and the lamp bulb not be directly visible from within any residential unit. PLAN Hermosa does not propose to alter this section of the code. These requirements would continue to apply to all C-3 uses. PLAN Hermosa Parks + Open Space Element Policy 5.7 would require that new buildings preserve nighttime views and minimize light levels along the shoreline. In addition, implementation action PARKS-12 would require that new developments meet exterior lighting standards. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.26.050 would reduce potential impacts of light or glare in the planning area by ensuring that new developments' designs, including outdoor lighting features and material reflectivity, do not result in additional sources of light and glare. These provisions stipulate that exterior lighting be fully shielded (full cutoff) and downcast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture), and not create glare or spill beyond the property lines, and the lamp bulb is not to be directly visible from within any residential unit. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetics and visual resources impacts includes Hermosa Beach and the communities of the South Bay subregion. IMPACT 4.1-6 Would PLAN Hermosa Contribute to Cumulative Adverse Effects Related to Visual Resources? Of the categories of potential visual impacts addressed, only the impact of artificial lighting to the night sky (skyglow impact) is potentially cumulative in nature. All other impacts (to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, shade and shadow effects, and lighting impacts of glare and spillover) are localized and confined within the city limits of Hermosa Beach. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. Because this EIR addresses citywide impacts, cumulative effects of multiple projects that might occur within the city during the lifetime of PLAN Hermosa are addressed as a part of this assessment. The discussion of potential skyglow impacts under Impact 4.1-5 acknowledges the cumulative nature of this impact and addresses the project's potential contribution to cumulative skyglow effects. Therefore, this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures None required. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.1-23 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 4.1.5 REFERENCES California Coastal Commission. 2013. California Public Resources Code, Division 20: California Coastal Act. Accessed February 18, 2014. hffp://www.coastal.ca.gov/coasfact.pdf. California Energy Commission. 1980. Solar Access: A Guidebook for California Communities, March. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed May 5, 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16-livability/scenic-highways/index.htm . City of Hermosa Beach. 1981. Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=501 2014a. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=l 1 1. 2014b. City Facts. hftp://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=47. 2014c. 2014-2019 Strategic Plan, hftp://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=99. 2014d. Community Dialogue Quality of Life and Decision Tool. http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocumenf.aspx?documentid=3764. 2017. PLAN Hermosa. Ewing, Reid. 2013. "Eight Qualities of Pedestrian- and Transit -Oriented Design." Excerpts from Pedestrian- & Transit -Oriented Design. http://urbanland.uli.org/infrastructure-transit/eight- qualities-of-pedestrian-and-transit-oriented-design/. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/visual/FH W AV isuallmpactAssmt.pdf. Hermosa Beach Historical Society. 2009. The Greenbelt. Accessed February 24, 2014. http://www.hermosabeachhistoricalsociety.org/greenbeltpage.html. USFS (US Forest Service). 1974. National Forest Landscape Management. Volume 2, Chapter 1. The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook No. 462. Washington, D.C. PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 41-24 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION This section evaluates potential air quality effects associated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa. NOP Comments: In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), one comment relevant to air quality was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (see Appendix B). The comment was focused on ensuring that the air quality analysis for PLAN Hermosa uses region -specific and up-to-date air quality modeling methodologies to evaluate the plan's impact on air quality. These comments and the SCAQMD's guidelines for analyzing air quality impacts have been incorporated in this analysis. Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous sources, including the Air Quality Technical Background Report (TBR), transportation analysis of existing conditions and modeling of future conditions, and other publicly available documents. The TBR is attached as Appendix C-4. 4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Appendix C-4 describes the natural factors (i.e., topography, climate, and meteorology) that affect air quality in the region; current regional air quality conditions in the project area; and the federal, state, and local air quality regulatory framework. A summary of that information is included below. NATURAL FACTORS Hermosa Beach is a beachfront city located in the South Coast Air Basin, and the SCAQMD is the air pollution control district responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the basin. The basin lies in the semi -permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. Winds in the planning area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the air basin is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions, which restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst -case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently focus on the following criteria air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, particulate matter (PMio and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead. Ozone is a photochemical oxidant and the primary component of smog. It is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight. Elevated levels of ozone can cause irritation to lungs and breathing passages, as well as coughing and pain in the chest and throat, thereby increasing susceptibility to respiratory infections and reducing the ability to exercise. Effects are more severe in people with asthma and other respiratory ailments. Long-term exposure may lead to scarring of lung tissue and may lower lung efficiency. Hermosa Beach is located in both a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, as local air quality conditions exceed the federal 8-hour ozone standard and the state 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-1 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY CURRENT REGIONAL AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS Hermosa Beach is located in both a federal and state nonattainment area for PM2.5 and a state nonattainment area for PMio. The human body naturally prevents the entry of larger particles into the body. However, small particles, with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns (i.e., PMio) and even smaller particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (i.e., PM2.5), can enter the body and are trapped in the nose, throat, and upper respiratory tract. These small particulates could potentially aggravate existing heart and lung diseases, change the body's defenses against inhaled materials, and damage lung tissue. The elderly, children, and those with chronic lung or heart disease are most sensitive to PMio and PM2.5. Lung impairment can persist for several weeks after exposure to high levels of particulate matter. Some types of particulates could become toxic after inhalation due to the presence of certain chemicals on or mixed with the particulates and the chemicals' reaction with internal body fluids. The city is located in an area that meets both federal and state CO standards as well as federal and state S02 standards. However, Hermosa Beach is located in a federal nonattainment area for NO2. Nitrogen dioxide acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than nitric oxide. Diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions are estimated to be 11,074 tons per year for the South Coast Air Basin. In Los Angeles County, the estimated health risk from diesel PM was 951 excess cancer cases per million people in 2005. Sources of diesel PM in the planning area include freeways, arterial roadways, and railways, as well as minor sources such as off -road construction equipment, portable and backup diesel generators and pumps, and other heavy - and light -duty equipment. Other toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources in Hermosa Beach include gasoline stations, auto body shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, and some commercial and light industrial uses. The city does not contain any major sources of air pollutants that will result in unacceptable air quality impacts to residents. The city does not contain any large sources of odors. Minor sources such as paint booths, auto body repair, and other light industrial sources may exist in Hermosa Beach. Other temporary sources of odors may include construction activities such as painting and asphalt paving. 4.2.3 REGULATORY SETTING Federal, state, and local plans, policies, laws, and regulations provide a framework for addressing aspects of air quality that would be affected by implementation of PLAN Hermosa. The regulatory setting for air quality is discussed in detail in Appendix C-4. A summary of that information as it relates to the impact analysis is provided below. • Fugitive Dust: The SCAQMD requires all projects in the air basin to implement Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 401 (Visible Dust), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) during construction activities. • Nuisance: The SCAQMD requires all projects to comply with Rule 402 (Nuisance) during both construction and operational activities. • CAAQS: The region is nonattainment for California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PMio), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The region is nonattainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, PMio, and PM2.5. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-2 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY Land Use: CARB (2005) developed the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective to guide the siting and design of new land uses in order to avoid exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling unit(s). 4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on air quality are considered significant if adoption and implementation of PLAN Hermosa would: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality management plan. 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations. 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The City of Hermosa Beach uses significance criteria established by the SCAQMD to evaluate air quality impacts. According to these criteria, implementation of PLAN Hermosa would be considered significant if it would exceed any of thresholds shown in Table 4.2-1 (Mass Daily Thresholds). City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-3 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY TABLE 4.2-1 MASS DAILY THRESHOLDS " Pollutant Construction a Operation b VOC 75 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day NOx 100 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day CO 550 Ibs/day 550 Ibs/day Sox 150 Ibs/day 150 Ibs/day PM10 150 Ibs/day 150 Ibs/day PMZ5 55 Ibs/day 55 Ibs/day Lead 3 Ibs/day 3 Ibs/day Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and Odor Thresholds TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (including carcinogens 210 in 1 million and noncarcinogens) Cancer Burden >0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas >_1 in 1 million) Hazard Index >_1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance (defined as six or more complainants) pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants c SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or NO2 contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1-hour average 0.18 ppm (state) annual average 0.03 ppm (state) PMI0 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)' 24-hour average & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) annual average 1.0 µg/m3 PM2,5 10.4 µg/m' (ConstruCtion)' 24-hour average & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) Sulfate 1 µg/ms 24-hour average CO SCA-QMD is in attainment; project is sig—rfificant if itZa-u-ses or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1-hour average 20 ppm (state) 8-hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal) Source: SCAQMD 2015 Notes: a. Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin). b. The mass daily thresholds for operation are the some as the construction thresholds. c. Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants are based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. d. Ambient air quality threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. e. lbs/day = pounds per day- ppm = parts per million; Erg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; z greater than or equal to City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 4.2 -4 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS APPROACH The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and implementation of PLAN Hermosa compared to existing conditions. The following analyses of impacts on air quality are both qualitative and quantitative and are based on available air quality information for the planning area along with a review of regional information. The analysis assumes that all future and existing development in the planning area complies with applicable laws, regulations, design standards, and plans. The cumulative impact analysis uses qualitative information for the planning area and the air basin. Operational emissions associated with future land uses anticipated by PLAN Hermosa were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 and CARB's on -road emissions inventory model, EMFAC2014. Model inputs such as land use types and sizes, vehicle miles traveled, and speed bins were obtained from the traffic study prepared for PLAN Hermosa (Fehr & Peers 2015). PLAN HERMOSA POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS PLAN Hermosa includes several elements, including Governance, Land Use + Design, Mobility, Sustainability + Conservation, and Infrastructure. In these elements, policies and implementation actions that directly and indirectly relate to air quality include the following: Policies Governance Element • 7.4 Evaluation and disclosure. Require an evaluation and disclosure (e.g., health checklists, health impact assessments) of health impacts or benefits for major discretionary projects. Land Use + Design Element • 1.3 Access to daily activities. Strive to create development patterns such that the majority of residents are within walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners, Laundromats, farmers markets, banks, personal services, pharmacies, and similar uses. • 1.7 Compatibility of uses. Ensure the placement of new uses does not create or exacerbate nuisances between different types of land uses. • 4.7 Access to transit. Support the location of transit stations and enhanced stops near the intersection of Aviation Blvd. and PCH, and adjacent to Gateway Commercial uses to facilitate and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow residents without private vehicles to access services. • 6.3 Green infrastructure network. Establish an interconnected green infrastructure network throughout Hermosa Beach that serves as a network for active transportation, recreation and scenic beauty and connects all areas of the city. In particular, connections should be made between the beach, parks, the Downtown, neighborhoods, and other destinations within the city. Consider the following components when designing and implementing the green/open space network: - Preserved open space areas such as the beach and the Greenbelt, - Living streets with significant landscaping and pedestrian and bicycle amenities, - Community and neighborhood parks, and schools. • 6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce walkability by discouraging surface parking and parking structures along walkways, long blank walls along walkways, and garage -dominated building facades. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-5 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY 9.1 Ocean -based energy resources. Encourage and support research and responsible development of renewable ocean -based energy sources. Renewable energy sources appropriate to Hermosa Beach shall be limited to wave, tidal, solar, and wind sources that meet the region's and state's need for affordable sources of renewable energy. • 9.2 Renewable energy facilities. To reduce or avoid conflicts, communicate and collaborate with affected ocean users; coastal residents and businesses; and applicants seeking state or federal authorization for the siting, development, and operation of renewable energy facilities. • 9.4 Adaptive management. Require renewable energy facility operators to rectify or mitigate adverse effects that occur during the lifetime of the project by monitoring and taking appropriate corrective measures through adaptive management. • 9.5 Reclamation. Require renewable energy facility operators to restore the natural characteristics of a site to the extent practicable when a project is decommissioned and removed. Mobility Element • 3.1 Enhance public right-of-ways. Where right-of-way clearance allows, enhance public right-of-ways to improve connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled persons, and public transit stops. • 3.2 Complete pedestrian network. Prioritize investment in designated priority sidewalks to ensure a complete network of sidewalks and pedestrian -friendly amenities that enhances pedestrian safety, access opportunities and connectivity to destinations. • 3.3 Active transportation. Require commercial development or redevelopment projects and residential projects with four or more units to accommodate active transportation by providing on -site amenities, necessary connections to adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle networks, and incorporate people -oriented design practices. • 3.4 Access opportunities. Provide enhanced mobility and access opportunities for local transportation and transit services in areas of the City with sufficient density and intensity of uses, mix of appropriate uses, and supportive bicycle and pedestrian network connections that can reduce vehicle trips within the City's busiest corridors. • 3.5 Incentivize other modes. Incentivize local shuttle/trolley services, rideshare and car share programs, and developing infrastructure that support low speed, low carbon (e.g. electric) vehicles. • 3.6 Complete bicycle network. Provide a complete bicycle network along all designated roadways while creating connections to other modes of travel including walking and transit. •-4-5—Sufficient—bicycle parking. Require a sufficient supply of bicycle —parking Lo be provided in conjunction with new vehicle parking facilities by both public and private developments. • 4.6 Priority parking. Provide priority parking and charging stations to accommodate the use of electric vehicles (EVs), including smaller short -distance neighborhood electric vehicles. • 4.9 Encourage TDM strategies. Encourage use of transportation demand management strategies and programs such as carpooling, ride hailing, and alternative transportation modes as a way to reduce demand for additional parking supply. • 5.1 Prioritize development of infrastructure. Prioritize the development of roadway and parking infrastructure that encourages private electric and other low carbon vehicle ownership and use throughout the City. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-6 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY 5.2 Local transit system. Develop a local transit system that facilitates efficient transport of residents, hotel guests, and beachgoers between activity centers and to Downtown businesses and the beach. • 5.3 Incentivize TDM strategies. Incentivize the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as a cost effective method for maximizing existing transportation infrastructure to accommodate mobility demands without significant expansion to infrastructure. • 5.4 Evaluate projects. Ensure the evaluation of projects for transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA consider local and statewide goals related to infill development, the promotion of healthy and active lifestyles through active transportation, and the reduction of greenhouse gases, in addition to traditional congestion management impacts. • 5.5 Multimodal development features. Encourage land use features in development projects to create compact, connected, and multimodal development that supports reduced trip generation, trip lengths, and greater ability to utilize alternative modes of travel. • 6.1 Regional network. Work with government agencies and private sector companies to develop a comprehensive, regionally integrated transportation network that connects the community to surrounding cities. • 6.2 Consider travel patterns. Consider regional travel patterns when collaborating on regional transit and transportation projects to ensure investments facilitate greater mobility and access for residents, businesses, and visitors to and from Hermosa Beach. ■ 6.3 Transportation sharing programs. Facilitate greater local and regional mobility through access to shared equipment or transportation options such as car sharing and bike sharing. • 6.4 Coordinate with agencies. Coordinate with regional transportation agencies and surrounding cities to improve local access and connections to regional public transit services. ■ 6.5 Coordinate with surrounding cities. Coordinate with surrounding cities to prioritize non - motorized and pedestrian connections to regional facilities and surrounding cities. • 6.6 Greater utilization of BCT. Consider exploring opportunities for greater utilization of the Beach Cities Transit system for improved mobility along major corridors and as a potential means of improved regional transit connections. • 8.1 Minimize truck impacts. Maintain and regularly re-evaluate the designation of truck routes to minimize the negative impacts of trucking through the City. • 8.2 Prohibit excessive idling. Discourage commercial vehicles from excessive idling during deliveries and while parked. • 8.3 Commercial loading zones. Encourage businesses to provide commercial loading zones on -site where possible, or in the adjacent public right-of-way in a manner that balances the needs of businesses with the impact on traffic conditions and at appropriate delivery times. • 8.5 Utilize technology. Encourage commercial vehicles to utilize technologies that minimize air pollution, fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions. ■ 8.6 Prohibit mobile advertising. Consider prohibiting mobile advertising, such as moving billboards, to avoid unnecessary traffic congestion and air pollution. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-7 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY Sustainability + Conservation Element 2.5 Land use and transportation investments. Promote land use and transportation investments that support greater transportation choice, greater local economic opportunity, and reduced number and length of automobile trips. 2.6 Greenhouse gas thresholds. Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for use in evaluating non-exempt discretionary projects consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and require projects above that threshold to substantially mitigate all feasible greenhouse gas emissions, and locally offset the remainder of greenhouse gas emissions produced to meet thresholds. • 3.1 Stationary and mobile sources. Seek to improve overall respiratory health for residents through regulation of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution, as feasible. • 3.2 Mobile source reductions. Support land use and transportation strategies to reduce emissions, including pollution from commercial and passenger vehicles. 3.3 Fuel efficient fleets. Promote fuel efficiency and cleaner fuels for vehicles as well as construction and maintenance equipment by requesting that City contractors provide cleaner fleets. • 3.4 Landscape equipment. Discourage the use of equipment with two-stroke engines and publicize the benefits and importance of alternative technologies. • 3.5 Clean fuels. Support increased local access to cleaner fuels and cleaner energy by encouraging fueling stations that provide cleaner fuels and energy to the community. • 3.6 Healthy Air Hermosa. Maintain high quality outdoor and public spaces in Hermosa Beach through the Healthy Air Hermosa program, or subsequent programs which aim to reduce cigarette smoke. • 3.7 Regional air quality. When possible, collaborate with other agencies within the region to improve air quality and meet or exceed state and federal air quality standards through regional efforts to reduce air pollution from mobile sources, including trucks and passenger vehicles and other large polluters. • 4.1 Renewable energy generation. Support and facilitate the installation of renewable energy projects on homes and businesses. • 4.2 Retrofit program. Provide an energy retrofit program and incentives to assist home and building owners to make efficiency improvements. • 7.2 Soil erosion. Utilize best management practices in grading and construction to minimize the amount of sediment running onto the street, drainage facilities, or adjacent properties. ---Ixa#xa str u ct a r�El em ent • 2.5 Active transportation dedications. Require new development and redevelopment projects to provide land or infrastructure necessary to accommodate active transportation, such as widened sidewalks, bike racks, and bus stops, in compliance with ADA accessibility standards. • 6.1 Utility maintenance permitting. Allow efficient and streamlined permitting for the maintenance, repair, improvement, and expansion of utility facilities and infrastructure. • 6.2 Below ground utilities. Encourage the phase out and replace overhead electric lines with subsurface lines to reduce visual blight and the need for utility poles which can impede sidewalk accessibility. • 6.3 Environmental compatibility. Ensure that utility facilities and infrastructure cause minimal damage to the environment and that utility service providers are responsible for City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-8 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY costs associated with damage caused to the environment and public right-of-way so that providers will seek to minimize those costs. • 6.4 Innovative and renewable technology. Encourage the exploration and establishment of innovative and renewable utility service technologies. Allow the testing of new alternative energy sources that are consistent with the goals and policies of PLAN Hermosa and comply with all relevant regulations. • 6.5 Renewable energy facilities. Unless a renewable energy facility would cause an unmitigatable impact to health or safety, allow them by right. • 6.6 Renewable energy procurement. Collaborate with nearby local and regional agencies to provide greater renewable energy choices to the community. Implementation Actions • LAND USE-12. Create a checklist and resource guide comprising local, state, and federal requirements for the development of offshore renewable energy facilities to streamline permitting requirements and improve public awareness. • MOBILITY-6. Install traffic calming devices in areas appropriate to mitigate an identified and documented traffic concern, as determined by the City Public Works Director or designee. Potential traffic calming applications include clearly marked and/or protected bike and pedestrian zones, bike boulevards, bulb outs, median islands, speed humps, traffic circles, speed tables, raised crosswalks, signalized crosswalks, chicanes, chokers, raised intersections, realigned intersections, and textured pavements, among other effective enhancements. • MOBILITY-12. Maintain and periodically update the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance with activities that will reduce auto trips associated with new development. • MOBILITY-13. Install and maintain transportation amenities such as bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations so that they are available at each commercial district or corridor, park, and public facility. • MOBILITY-15. Facilitate the operation of bicycle rental concessions in the Coastal Zone. • MOBILITY-19. Develop congestion management performance measures and significant impact thresholds that are in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requirements for roadway segments and intersections. • SUSTAINABILITY-1. Establish a local greenhouse gas impact fee for discretionary projects to provide an option to offset their fair share of greenhouse gas emissions generated, by providing funding for implementation of local GHG reduction projects. • SUSTAINABILITY-2. Establish greenhouse gas emissions thresholds of significance and standardize potential mitigation measures for non-exempt discretionary projects. • SUSTAINABILITY-6. Implement the City's clean fleet policy through the purchase or lease of vehicles and equipment that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. • SUSTAINABILITY-7. Concurrent with new State Building Code adoptions, periodically update or amend Green Building Standards and conduct cost effectiveness studies to incorporate additional energy -efficiency and energy production features. • SUSTAINABILITY-8. Develop and market a program to offer incentives such as rebates, fee waivers, or permit streamlining to facilitate the installation of renewable energy, energy efficient, or water conservation equipment. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-9 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY • SUSTAINABILITY-16. Revise the Municipal Code as necessary to ensure it reflects up-to- date practices to reduce potential for soil erosion and ways to minimize or eliminate the effects of grading on the loss of topsoil. • SUSTAINABILITY-17. Develop a citywide expansive and corrosive soils screening tool to reduce the need for site -specific soil reports. • SUSTAINABILITY-18. Where feasible, new development or redevelopment shall be sited and designed to minimize alteration of natural landforms by conforming to the local topography; preventing substantial grading or reconfiguration of the project site; requiring that man-made contours mimic natural contours; ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding areas; and clustering structures to minimize site disturbance and to minimize development area. • PARKS-19. Amend the Local Implementation Plan/Zoning Code to require applicants for summer events occurring on weekends or holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day with greater than 1,000 participants to provide and advertise predetermined shuttle services and bicycle corrals. • SAFETY-17. Provide information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for the proper disposal of toxic materials to avoid environmental degradation to the air, soil, and water resources from toxic materials contamination. • INFRASTRUCTURE-23. Develop a process for identifying sites deemed appropriate for alternative renewable energy power generation facilities, and provide such information to utility providers and potential developers. • INFRASTRUCTURE-24. Continue to implement energy -efficient lighting throughout City facilities. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT 4.2-1 Would PLAN Hermosa Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan? Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in a manner that could result in air pollution emissions. Compliance with existing federal and state regulations and implementation of PLAN Hermosa policies would reduce conflicts with air quality plans to a less than significant level. Regional air quality plans are developed to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. As summarized in the Environmental Setting subsection above and shown in Table 1 of Appendix C-4, the region is nonattainment for the state and federal ozone, PMio, and PM2.5 standards and is nonattainment for the state NO2 standard. As noted above, these pollutants cause public health issues involving asthma and other respiratory ailments as well as aggravate existing heart arrd-lung diseases -.-In order for thee-region-to-attain-and-mairrtairv--alr guaHt,/-stt ndard�and protect public health, a concerted effort from all cities and counties in the air basin is required to reduce emissions from a variety of sources. Air quality plans model emission contributions from sources within the air basin (and outside the air basin for transport of emissions) using planned land uses and reduction measure assumptions. This type of modeling demonstrates how the air quality plan can or cannot attain air quality standards by certain dates. Therefore, if a city in the air basin would not be consistent with the assumptions and emission reduction strategies contained in an air quality plan, this could conflict with or obstruct the region's ability to attain an ambient air quality standard. By focusing planning and improvement efforts toward designing complete streets, promoting economic diversity, and enhancing communitywide mobility, PLAN Hermosa is anticipated to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the city. Mobility Element Goal 3 would encourage City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-10 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY multimodal and people -oriented transportation, which could minimize or eliminate certain mobile vehicle trips (see Section 4.14, Transportation, of this EIR for an analysis of anticipated vehicle miles traveled under PLAN Hermosa). Land Use + Design Element Goal 1 would promote a diverse mix of uses, which would reduce vehicle trips between residential uses and retail or employment uses. Land Use + Design Element Goal 4 would increase the accessibility of public transit to nearby residential uses, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled. Mobility Element Policy 5.5 encourages land use policies to ensure more compact, connected, and multimodal development supports reduced trip generation, trip lengths, and greater ability to utilize alternative modes. Implementing these policies and programs would strengthen Hermosa Beach's efforts to reduce air quality emissions from VMT, area sources, construction, and other miscellaneous sources beyond that of the existing General Plan,' which is the basis for the existing regional air quality plan (i.e., 2012 Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP]). Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 3.1 seeks to improve overall respiratory health for residents through regulation of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. Policy 3.2 encourages support for land use and transportation strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions, including pollution from commercial and passenger vehicles. Policy 3.3 would promote fuel efficiency and cleaner fuels for vehicles as well as construction and maintenance equipment by requesting that City contractors provide cleaner fleets. Policy 3.7 would ensure that future projects consider impacts on regional air quality planning efforts. Policy 7.2 would require construction projects to control emissions, particularly soil disturbance, which is a source of PMio and PM2.5 emissions. As stated in the 2012 AQMP, the plan is aimed at controlling pollution from all man-made sources, including stationary sources, on -road and off -road mobile sources, and area sources (SCAQMD 2013). Therefore, the emission reductions that could be achieved through implementation of PLAN Hermosa are anticipated to exceed those currently planned for in the regional air quality plan and would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP. Although the SCAQMD is currently developing a 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, it is anticipated that the 2016 AQMP would target the same types of emission sources and would require further reductions from all jurisdictions because of the nonattainment status of the air basin with respect to state ozone, NOX, PM2.5, and PMio standards. Both the 2012 adopted and 2016 proposed AQMPs rely on the growth projections and vehicle travel patterns modeled in the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan (Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR evaluates PLAN Hermosa's consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan). As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, many PLAN Hermosa goals and policies are aimed at reducing VMT. Fehr & Peers used the TDM+ model to quantify potential reductions in trip generation and VMT that could occur by 2040 with full buildout and implementation of PLAN Hermosa. Fehr & Peers worked with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) to develop the transportation section of the report titled Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. This report is now used as a set of guidelines for quantifying the environmental benefits of mitigation measures. The CAPCOA guidelines were developed by conducting a comprehensive literature review of studies documenting the effects of land use planning and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies on reducing VMT. Using the results of this study, Fehr & Peers developed TDM+, a quick response tool that demonstrates trip I The existing General Plan is identified as the No Project Alternative in Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this EIR. Table 6-1 of Chapter 6 and Table 4-1 of Appendix C-4 to this EIR identify vehicle travel as the main contributor to ozone precursors (ROG and NOx). City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-11 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY reductions from commonly used TDM strategies. The tool also accounts for the interaction among different measures in various categories to avoid double counting. As described in Section 4.14, numerous PLAN Hermosa land use and mobility strategies were modeled to demonstrate reductions in VMT, including but not limited to land use strategies such as development of mixed -use and urban infill sites with transit proximity and a density, scale, and design that can facilitate walking, biking, and other alternative travel options. PLAN Hermosa policies include numerous measures that support transportation demand and accessibility management. Specifically, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 3.2 directs the City to support land use and transportation strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions, including pollution from commercial and passenger vehicles. Policy 3.7 directs the City to consult with other agencies to improve air quality through regional efforts to reduce air pollution from mobile sources. PLAN Hermosa would promote land use and transportation investments that support greater transportation choice, greater local economic opportunity, and reduced number and length of automobile trips. These and other policies support region -wide traffic and air quality management strategies that support achievement of AQMP goals. PLAN Hermosa would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. IMPACT 4.2-2 Would PLAN Hermosa Generate Short -Term Construction Emissions That Would Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation? Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development in the city in a manner that could generate air pollutant emissions from short-term construction. Although PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and enforcement of current SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce short-term emissions, construction emissions would result in a potentially significant impact. The SCAQMD has established quantitative daily thresholds of significance for construction emissions, as identified in Table 4.2-1. Development associated with the implementation of PLAN Hermosa would result in construction emissions that would be evaluated using the SCAQMD thresholds of significance on a project -by -project basis. However, at the program level, it would be speculative to accurately model construction emissions associated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa because it is unknown at this time what projects specifically would be const-ruGted--ncler-the -plan-what construction equ lon ent woutc_be used for each project and what each project's construction phasing would be. Therefore, construction air quality impacts are evaluated qualitatively. Construction of PLAN Hermosa's proposed land uses would generate short-term criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions from sources such as heavy-duty construction equipment, material delivery trucks, soil disturbance activities, construction worker vehicles, and architectural coatings, among other activities. The daily amounts of pollutants generated would vary depending on the intensity of the construction activities and types of construction equipment used. Smaller projects with a more compact schedule, though they may involve less overall development, could generate daily emissions that exceed those of a large project with a drawn -out schedule. CalEEMod is an emissions model developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to calculate construction emissions for CEQA projects. Within CalEEMod, City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-12 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY smaller projects such as single-family residences or commercial or industrial uses which are less than 150,000 square feet and that have minimal or no overlapping construction activities would not likely exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA significance thresholds for construction. Most of the development activity in the city is not expected to exceed 150,000 square feet given the city's developed condition and the limited number of large or contiguous parcels that are vacant and underutilized and therefore more likely to redevelop. However, larger projects or projects which are more complex (large quantities of grading, accelerated schedule, overlapping activities) may have the potential to exceed significance thresholds. Current examples of projects that may be under 150,000 square feet, but involve grading or excavation, include the proposed Skechers Design Center and Executive Office Project and the proposed Strand and Pier Hotel Project. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate construction emissions by simply evaluating the number of units or square feet of space to be developed. However, there is potential that construction of some future projects pursuant to PLAN Hermosa would generate short-term construction emissions that could exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. A number of PLAN Hermosa policies, along with required SCAQMD rules and regulations, would help reduce short-term construction emissions. All construction projects in the city would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to minimize fugitive particulate matter (PM) dust emissions during construction. In addition, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 7.2 would require future projects to minimize PM,o and PM2.5 emissions by promoting best practices for controlling fugitive dust. Implementation actions SUSTAINABILITY-16 and 17 aim to control soil erosion during grading and other construction activities. Furthermore, Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 2.6 would require all discretionary projects to substantially mitigate all feasible greenhouse gas emissions, which would also affect the emissions of ozone precursors, PMio, and PM2.5 in the city. Although the SCAQMD would require compliance with Rule 403, and implementation of multiple PLAN Hermosa policies would reduce construction emissions, there is potential that a number of future projects will continue to generate emissions which exceed the SCAQMD construction thresholds of significance. Because most construction projects are performed by private parties, the City would have little control over construction equipment and truck emissions. However, EPA emissions standards require strict emissions controls for construction equipment and trucks that are phased in over time. As older construction equipment is phased out and replaced with newer equipment, emissions from the average construction fleet would be lower. With time, the construction fleet would eventually meet EPA Tier 4 emissions standards, which are currently the most stringent standards. Construction -related impacts would be potentially significant. To reduce construction -related emissions, mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e would be required. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-2a Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: • All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-13 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY • The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. • All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. • All dirt/soil materials transported off -site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. • General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. • Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off. MM 4.2-2b In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel -fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location. MM 4.2-2c Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings. MM 4.2-2d Construction projects within the city shall install odor -reducing equipment in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1138. MM 4.2-2e Project applicants shall identify all measures to reduce air pollutant emissions below SCAQMD thresholds prior to the issuance of building permits. Should attainment of SCAQMD thresholds be determined to be infeasible, construction contractors shall provide evidence of this to the City and will be encouraged to apply for SCAQMD SOON funds. Significance After Mitigation Even with the implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e, SCAQMD Rule 403, and PLAN Hermosa policies, it is still anticipated that some projects would have the potential to generate daily construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Because the intensity and schedule of construction activities cannot be determined at the time of this program -level analysis, it would be speculative to conclude that any level of mitigation would reduce daily construction emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for SCAQMD SOON funds. The SOON program provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off -road diesel vehicles, such as heavy-duty construction equipment. In many cases, because of the amount of construction required for a project, even if all feasible mitigation is implemented, daily emissions could still exceed the significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-14 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY IMPACT 4.2-3 Would PLAN Hermosa Generate Long -Term Operational Emissions That Would Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation? Subsequent development associated with the implementation of PLAN Hermosa could generate air pollutant emissions from long-term operation. PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and enforcement of current SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce long-term emissions. Daily operational emissions from long-term operation of PLAN Hermosa would result in a less than significant impact. Long-term operational emissions are generated from stationary, area, and mobile sources. Table 4.2-2 (Summary of Modeled Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors) summarizes the daily long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors for existing and new development that could occur under the full buildouf potential by 2040. The daily operational area, energy, and mobile source emissions were modeled using CalEEMod (Version 2013.2.2) computer model EMFAC2014 and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data in the traffic study prepared by Fehr & Peers (2015). TABLE 4.2-2 SUMMARY OF MODELED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS Emissions (Ibs/da )° VOC I NOx CO SO- I PMio PMz.s Existing Conditions Area Sources 1,128 18 1,674 <1 129 129 Energy 5 46 20 <1 4 4 Mobile Sources 157 472 1,933 5 309 87 Total 1,290 536 3,627 5 442 220 Development Potential Under PLAN Hermosa Nonresidential Area Sources 125 1 <1 125 <1 <1 <1 Energy 1 113 In <1 1 1 Residential Area Sources 17 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy 1 12 10 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources (15) (30) (123) (0) (3) (1) Total Daily Operational Emissions — PLAN Hermosa Development Potential 30 (5) (77) (0) (0) 1 Project -Based SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Project Threshold? No No No No No No Plan Hermosa Development Potential Plus Existing Conditions E 1,320 531 3,550 5 1442 221 Source: Appendix D; existing conditions modeled by Michael Baker International 2016. SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; lbs/day = pounds per day; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PMio = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter,- PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter- ROG = reactive organic gases. Emissions modeled using the CalEEMod (Version 2013.2.2) computer model and EMFAC2014, based on daily vehicle miles traveled, daily trips, and land uses obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project, which estimates a reduction of 2,500 daily vehicle trips under PLAN Hermosa as compared to existing conditions. Note: The total emissions estimates shown are the highest values that would occur in the summer or winter season. Totals may not add up to individual values since the highest emissions for a pollutant from both area and mobile sources may not occur in the some season. Refer to Appendix D for detailed assumptions and modeling output files. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-15 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY The SCAQMD's thresholds are established for individual projects and are not readily applied to a 25-year program such as PLAN Hermosa. Although the City will apply the SCAQMD's thresholds to individual projects as they are brought forward, the total emissions in the city and the planning area will still exceed these project -based thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2-2, area sources contribute to most of the ROG, CO, and PM operational emissions in the city. With regard to mobile source emissions, PLAN Hermosa policies would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled within the city. As a result, mobile source emissions would be reduced compared to existing conditions. Heavy -commercial or industrial land uses are more likely to involve stationary sources, while retail and residential land uses would involve more area source emissions (e.g., natural gas water and space heating, consumer products, landscape maintenance). Similar to construction emissions, the SCAQMD has developed daily thresholds of significance for operational activities. Project -level analysis of future projects would evaluate daily emissions against the SCAQMD operational thresholds of significance. PLAN Hermosa includes numerous goals, policies, and programs that would impact future emissions associated with land use operations. Mobility Element Policies 3.6, 5.2, and 5.3 would provide new and existing land uses with greater accessibility to alternate modes of transportation and supporting amenities, some of which would be emissions -free (e.g., walking, biking). Therefore, implementation of PLAN Hermosa would provide convenient alternatives to driving and reduce trip distances through infill development in the city. In addition, Mobility Element Policies 3.4 and 5.2 would use public transit to link employment and residential centers to provide realistic alternatives to single -occupant vehicles for a variety of trip types (e.g., home to work, home to shopping). Mobility Element Policies 3.2 and 3.3 would require new development to add pedestrian infrastructure and provide necessary connections to transit and alternate transit modes, respectively. Mobility Element Policy 5.5 and Land Use + Design Element Policy 1.3 would require that more compact, connected, and multimodal development supports reduced trip generation, trip lengths, and greater ability to utilize alternative modes and that safe and convenient complete streets (i.e., designed for all modes of transportation) be implemented throughout the city and connect residential and amenities for feasible day-to-day use. Increasing bicycle mode share is a major goal to reduce mobile source emissions. Implementation actions MOBILITY-6 and 15 would strategically expand the city's bicycle infrastructure to provide practical and safe connections between land uses. Therefore, PLAN Hermosa would supply alternative modes of transportation Through city infrastructure as well as provide incentives to maximize the effectiveness of these developments. The PLAN Hermosa goals, programs, and policies discussed above would reduce mobile source operational emissions throughout the city. As a result, total emissions associated with daily operational activities would remain below SCAQMD thresholds of significance, as shown in Table 4.2-2. Therefore, PLAN Hermosa's operational emissions would be considered less than significant. As discussed above, emissions presented in Table 4.2-2 take into account policies which would reduce vehicle traffic and related emissions within the city. With regard to stationary (non -mobile) sources, new projects would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, which would increase energy efficiency and reduce water usage. As a result, emissions resulting from energy and water usage would be reduced. Mitigation Measures None required. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-16 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY IMPACT 4.2-4 Would PLAN Hermosa Create or Contribute to CO Hot Spots That Could Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Region Is Nonattainment? Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that would reduce vehicle traffic to existing roadways, which could reduce the potential for CO hot spots. Traffic volumes anticipated at intersections throughout the city with implementation of PLAN Hermosa would not be large enough to cause a CO hot spot, resulting in a less than significant impact. Carbon monoxide concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity (e.g., idling time and traffic flow conditions), particularly during peak commute hours, and meteorological conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions (e.g., stable conditions that result in poor dispersion), CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels at local sensitive land uses such as residential areas, schools, and hospitals. As a result, the SCAQMD recommends analyzing carbon monoxide emissions at a local as well as a regional level. A CO hot spot is an area of localized carbon monoxide pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. The SCAQMD requires a microscale CO hot -spot analysis against the 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide when a project increases the volume -to -capacity ratio by 2 percent for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. The PLAN Hermosa traffic analysis (see Section 4.14, Transportation) indicates that one signalized intersection would operate at LOS E in 2040. Therefore, further investigation of potential CO impacts is warranted. A detailed CO analysis was conducted during the preparation of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the 2003 AQMP included high average daily traffic (ADT) intersections in the air basin, those which would be expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. The highest CO concentration observed was at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue on the west side of Los Angeles near Interstate 405. The concentration of CO at this intersection was 4.6 parts per million (ppm), which is well below the 35-ppm 1-hour CO federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection has an ADT of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The PLAN Hermosa traffic analysis demonstrates that three of the studied intersections would operate at LOS E in 2040. However, only one of these intersections is signalized. The highest total intersection ADT for any of these intersections would be about 35,700 vehicles at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard, which is less than 100,000 vehicles per day. Furthermore, due to stricter vehicle emissions standards in newer cars, new technology, and increased fuel economy, CARB has indicated that future CO emission factors under future land use conditions (year 2040) would be lower than those under existing conditions. Thus, project - generated local mobile -source CO emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to concentrations that exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Because the number of vehicles traveling through the Pacific Coast Highway/Aviation Boulevard intersection is less than 100,000 vehicles per day, local mobile - source CO emissions would not exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standard. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. IMPACT 4.2-5 Would PLAN Hermosa Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations? Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 4.2-17 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY development and reuse projects in Hermosa Beach in a manner that would potentially generate additional diesel vehicle traffic and diesel stationary sources within the city. This impact would be less than significant. Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa could potentially include short-term construction sources and long-term operational sources of TACs, including stationary and mobile sources. Short -Term Construction Sources Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would result in the potential construction of a variety of projects. This construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which CARB identifies as a toxic air contaminant. Construction would result in the generation of diesel PM emissions from the use of off -road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health -related risks associated with diesel -exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically based on a 70-year period of exposure. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. For these reasons, diesel PM generated by construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to create conditions where the probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in 1 million for nearby receptors. Nevertheless, construction emissions are regulated by the SCAQMD, which has developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for several emissions generated at construction sites (see subsection 4.2.2, Environmental Setting), including PM2.5, produced when diesel fuel is burned. LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a construction site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or state ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres of land and less in a single day. Future construction activities under PLAN Hermosa would be required to meet SCAQMD thresholds or to implement mitigation. Examples of feasible mitigation to address short-term construction sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, the requirement to keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, the use of late -model heavy-duty diesel -powered equipment during construction to the extent that it is readily available, the use of diesel -powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after -treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts), and the use of alternative -fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available. Long -Term Mobile Sources In April 2005, CARB released the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which offers guidance on siting sensitive land uses in proximity to sources of air toxics. Sensitive land uses identified in the handbook include residential communities, schools and schoolyards, day-care centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and medical facilities. In terms of mobile source emissions of toxic air contaminants, CARB has provided guidelines to help determine appropriate land uses near heavily traveled roadways. The CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicle trips per day (VTD), or rural roads with 50,000 VTD should be avoided when possible. None of the City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-18 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 A►IR QUALITY roadways in the city would exceed these daily vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4.14-13 in Section 4.14, Transportation, the roadway with the highest existing daily vehicle trips is Pacific Coast Highway at 51,437 VTD. In Hermosa Beach, Pacific Coast Highway is considered an urban arterial roadway which, based on CARB guidelines, would need 100,000 VTD to exceed the TAC threshold. In any case, new sources of toxic air contaminants and/or other criteria air pollutants would be mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Governance Element Policy 7.5 requires the evaluation and disclosure (e.g., health checklists, health impact assessments) of health impacts or benefits for all discretionary projects. Most of the pollutant emissions in the Hermosa Beach area are attributable to mobile sources (construction and on -road) such as major roadways like Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard located along the northern boundary. Furthermore, mobile sources of TACs in the city would be reduced through various PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element and Land Use + Design Element policies, including minimizing truck impacts through the city (Mobility Element Policy 8.1), discouraging excessive idling by commercial vehicles (Mobility Element Policy 8.2), and a consideration to prohibit mobile advertising (Mobility Element Policy 8.6). In addition, the policies described above in Impact 4.2-2 to reduce mobile source emissions and construction emissions would reduce diesel PM emissions from PLAN Hermosa's planned land uses. Furthermore, statewide efforts such as CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicles (In Use) Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Heavier trucks were required to be retrofitted with particulate matter filters beginning January 1, 2012, and the State requires replacement of older trucks, starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel -fueled trucks and buses, as well as to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. Because of these types of regulations, including additional EPA -mandated controls (cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels, and cleaner engines), mobile source air toxics (MSATs), which are the primary source of TACs, are now predicted by the Federal Highway Administration (2012) to decrease by 83 percent from 2010 to 2050 (2012). Long -Term Stationary Sources Based on the PLAN Hermosa Land Use Map, only two areas of the city, Creative Light Industrial and Service Commercial, are designated for uses that could contain new or expanded stationary TAC sources, including gasoline dispensing stations. Gasoline dispensing stations are a source of gasoline vapors, which include TACs such as benzene, methyl tertiary -butyl ether, toluene, and xylene. Benzene is the primary TAC associated with gas stations. Gasoline vapors are released during the filling of stationary underground storage tanks and during the transfer from those underground tanks to individual vehicles. The SCAQMD has stringent requirements for the control of gasoline vapor emissions from gasoline -dispensing facilities. SCAQMD Rule 461 (Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing) limits emissions of organic compounds from gasoline dispensing facilities. Rule 461 prohibits the transfer or allowance of the transfer of gasoline into stationary tanks at a gasoline dispensing facility unless a CARB-certified Phase I vapor recovery system is used, and further prohibits the transfer or allowance of the transfer of gasoline from stationary tanks into motor vehicle fuel tanks at a gasoline dispensing facility unless a CARB-certified Phase II vapor recovery system is used during each transfer. Vapor recovery systems collect gasoline vapors that would otherwise escape into the air during bulk fuel delivery (Phase I) or fuel storage and vehicle refueling (Phase II). Phase I vapor recovery system components include the couplers that connect tanker trucks to the underground tanks, spill containment drain valves, overfill prevention devices, and vent City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-19 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY pressure/vacuum valves. Phase II vapor recovery system components include gasoline dispensers, nozzles, piping, breakaway hoses, faceplates, vapor processors, and system monitors. Rule 461 also requires fuel storage tanks to be equipped with a permanent submerged fill pipe tank that prevents the escape of gasoline vapors. In addition, all gasoline must be stored underground with valves installed on the tank vent pipes to further control gasoline emissions. Gasoline dispensing facilities are also regulated by SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), which provides for the review of TAC emissions in order to evaluate potential public exposure and health risk, to mitigate potentially significant health risks resulting from these exposures, and to provide net health risk benefits by improving the level of control when existing sources are modified or replaced. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1401, stationary sources having the potential to emit TACs, including gas stations, are required to obtain permits from the SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations provided they are operated in accordance with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. The SCAQMD's permitting procedures require substantial control of emissions, and permits are not issued unless TAC risk screening or TAC risk assessment can show that risks are not significant. The SCAQMD may impose limits on annual throughput to ensure risks are within acceptable limits. (In addition, California has statewide limits on the benzene content in gasoline, which greatly reduces the toxic potential of gasoline emissions.) Under Rule 1401, the following requirements must be met before a permit is granted to the proposed gasoline station component of a project: The cumulative increase from all TACs emitted from a single piece of equipment in maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) shall not exceed: - One in one million (1 x 10-6) if Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT) is not used; or - Ten in one million (10 x 10-6) if T-BACT is used. The cumulative cancer burden from all TACs emitted from a single piece of equipment (increase in cancer cases in the population) shall not exceed 0.5. Neither the chronic hazard index (HIC), the 8-hour chronic hazard index (HIC8), nor the total acute hazard index (HIA) from all TACs emitted from a single piece of equipment shall exceed 1.0 for any target organ system, or an alternate hazard index level deemed to be safe. According to the SCAQMD (2014), there are currently about 3,140 retail gasoline stations in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD has conducted an industry -wide health risk assessment for these retail gasoline stations using dispersion modeling. According to this assessment, 91 percent of the gasoline stations were demonstrated to generate a health risk within the acceptable threshold and 9 percent of the stations have risks above the threshold. Approximately half of the 9 percent of gasoline stations in the South Coast Air Basin with risks above the health risk f�hold were--estzrblTslie-d-pr'rorfi�SCA-QMD-Ru1e--1401, adopted in 1-990; and Thus -were -not subject to the TAC limitations required by this rule (SCAQMD 2014). The SCAQMD has developed screening health risk tables for a generic retail gasoline service station. The modeled stations are assumed to have Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery systems and calculate for cancer risk accounting for the meteorological conditions of different locations throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Cancer risks from any future proposed gasoline service station in Hermosa Beach can be estimated from the SCAQMD screening tables. The issuance of SCAQMD air quality permits and compliance with all SCAQMD, state, and federal regulations regarding stationary TACs, including gasoline dispensing stations and other stationary sources, reduce potential stationary sources of TAC emissions such that sensitive receptors in the city would not be exposed to substantial air pollutant concentrations. The City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-20 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY SCAQMD limits public exposure to toxic air contaminants through a number of programs. The SCAQMD reviews the potential for TAC emissions from new and modified stationary sources through the SCAQMD permitting process for stationary sources. TAC emissions from existing stationary sources are limited by: 1) SCAQMD Rule 1401, which requires that construction or reconstruction of a major stationary source emitting hazardous air pollutants listed in Section 1 12(b) of the Clean Air Act be constructed with Best Available Control Technology and comply with all other applicable requirements. 2) Implementation of the Air Toxics "Hot Spot" (AB 2588) program as described in the Regulatory Setting subsection above. 3) Implementation of the federal Title III Toxics program. Facilities and equipment that require permits from the SCAQMD are screened from risks from toxic emissions and can be required to install Toxic Best Available Control Technology (T-BACT) to reduce the risks to below significant if deemed necessary by the SCAQMD. T-BACTs are the most up-to-date methods, systems, techniques, and production processes available to achieve the greatest feasible emission reductions for toxic air contaminants. In addition to these requirements, PLAN Hermosa contains several policies that protect city residents from toxic air pollution. Governance Element Policy 7.5 requires an evaluation and disclosure (e.g., health checklists, health impact assessments) of health impacts or benefits for all major discretionary projects. Land Use and Design Element Policy 1.7 ensures the placement of new uses does not create or exacerbate nuisances between different types of land uses, and Sustainability + Conservation Element Policy 3.1 seeks to improve overall respiratory health for residents through regulation of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution, as feasible. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. IMPACT 4.2-6 Would PLAN Hermosa Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People? Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that could generate odors or expose existing receptors to odors. However, PLAN Hermosa policies and programs and compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would result in a less than significant impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose individuals to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Typical facilities that generate odors include wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, and food processing facilities, among others. However, food service, retail, and/or or residential land uses could also generate substantial odor sources from improper garbage disposal. Hermosa Beach does not contain any large sources of odors. SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) would prohibit any land use (except agricultural land uses) from generating odors that "endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons of the public" (SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-21 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY 1976). Agricultural land uses are not permitted within the incorporated city and therefore would not generate substantial odors in Hermosa Beach. Therefore, implementation of PLAN Hermosa and compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would ensure that a substantial number of receptors are not exposed to substantial odor emissions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Although air quality emissions associated with PLAN Hermosa would be compared with SCAQMD thresholds of significance on a project -by -project basis, these emissions also cumulatively contribute to the air quality in the basin. Therefore, the cumulative context for air quality is the South Coast Air Basin. Certain localized pollutants such as CO, PMio, PM2.5, and TACs have a cumulative context of the surrounding land uses and emission sources where they would be emitted. The localized cumulative effect of these localized pollutants is important to consider when evaluating impacts on sensitive receptors. IMPACT 4.2-7 Would PLAN Hermosa Contribute to Cumulative Air Quality Impacts? Implementation of PLAN Hermosa in addition to anticipated growth in the South Coast Air Basin would increase the amount of air quality emissions occurring within the basin and affect the region's ability to attain ambient air quality standards. This would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Construction Emissions As discussed previously, construction air quality emissions would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This, in combination with other new construction projects in the SCAQMD region, would add to a cumulative effect on air quality pollutant levels in the area. While construction air quality emissions are generally short term, as they only occur during the construction of a project, because the intensity and schedule of construction activities cannot be determined, it would be speculative to conclude that any level of mitigation would reduce daily construction emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e would reduce the potential for air quality impacts. However, as stated previously, in many cases, because of the amount of construction required for a project, even if all feasible mitigation is implemented, daily emissions could still exceed the significance thresholds. In addition, the City would not have control over projects outside its boundaries and therefore could not require mitigation for air quality impacts for these projects: Bec-ouse :it--has-be-en detear-n-�incd that implcmenfation o-f m_ i igatio_n-mewsur_es MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e would not reduce construction -related air quality impacts to a less than significant level, the various future projects would add to the cumulative air quality emissions from construction in the SCAQMD region. As such, this impact would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. Operational Emissions Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would generate long-term operational emissions from a variety of proposed land uses. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa Sustainability + Conservation Element, Mobility Element, and Land Use + Design Element policies and programs would reduce mobile and area source emissions associated with operation of future land uses. Because these policies and programs affect a wide range of land use and transportation factors (e.g., City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-22 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY accessibility to transit, parking availability, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, distance from residential to commercial and employment uses), mobile source emissions could be substantially reduced. Daily operational emissions associated with the proposed land uses would remain below the SCAQMD's operational thresholds of significance. As shown in Table 4.2-2, daily operational emissions associated with PLAN Hermosa land uses would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. As discussed in Impact 4.2-4, the PLAN Hermosa traffic analysis (see Section 4.14, Transportation) indicates that one signalized intersection in the city would operate at LOS E in 2040, and similar conditions would be expected at other intersections throughout the region. No area in the SCAQMD region has exceeded the NAAQS for carbon monoxide since 2003 (City of Hermosa Beach 2014). Furthermore, emissions in the future would decrease due to the turnover in vehicle fleets and emissions technology, which is documented in the CARB mobile source emissions model EMFAC2014. Considering this information, if is not anticipated that implementation of PLAN Hermosa would cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to potential CO hot spots in the city or the region. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa would contribute TAC emissions in the city from mobile, area, and stationary sources associated with proposed land uses. PLAN Hermosa focuses on infill projects and siting residential and commercial land use in proximity to each other to allow non - motorized trips for shopping, work, and recreational trips. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element Policies 8.1, 8.2, 8.5, and 8.6 would reduce TAC emissions from commercial vehicles by limiting idling and consider a prohibition on mobile advertising while encouraging better fuel efficiency and the use of technology that reduces air pollution. As discussed in Impact 4.2-5, CARB's Air Qualify and Land Use Handbook identifies acceptable distances at which to place sensitive receptors from TAC sources. Therefore, implementation of PLAN Hermosa would reduce future TAC emissions and avoid siting sensitive receptors near substantial TAC sources. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that PLAN Hermosa would cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions. Therefore, impacts from operational air quality emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures Implement mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e. Significance After Mitigation ion Even with the implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2a through MM 4.2-2e, SCAQMD Rule 403, and PLAN Hermosa policies, it is still anticipated that future construction projects, in combination with other construction in the SCAQMD area, would have the potential to generate daily construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. As such, construction -related cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-23 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2.5 REFERENCES CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. City of Hermosa Beach. 2014. Proposed E&B Oil Production Project Final Environmental Impact Report. hftp://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocumenf.aspx?documentid=4289. 2017. PLAN Hermosa. Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Interim Guidance on MSAT Analysis in NEPA. Fehr & Peers. 2015. Draft Transportation Analysis Report: PLAN Hermosa General Plan. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1976. Rule 402, Nuisance. Accessed March 27, 2012. http://agmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04/r402.pdf. 2007. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan: Executive Summary. Accessed May 31, 2012. http://aqmd.gov/agmp/07agmp/agmp/Execufive_Summary.pdf. 2013. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air- quality-management-plan. 2014. Website: Retail Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/compliance/toxic-hot-spots-ab-2588/iws- facilities/iws-gas-station. 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/cega/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.2-24 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.3.1 INTRODUCTION This resource section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to biological resources associated with implementation of PLAN Hermosa. The analysis includes a review of special -status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands, wildlife movement, and planning efforts associated with biological resources. Policies and implementation actions presented in the PLAN Hermosa Parks + Open Space Element intend to protect coastal and marine habitat resources by protecting and restoring these spaces that are fundamental components of Hermosa Beach's environment. NOP Comments: No comments were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) addressing biological resources concerns. Comments included written letters and oral comments provided at the NOP scoping meeting. Reference Information: Information for this resource section is based on numerous sources, including the PLAN Hermosa Technical Background Report (TBR) and other publicly available documents. The TBR is included as Appendix C. 4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Appendix C-6 describes the vegetation, habitat, and wildlife in the planning area, including special -status species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands. A summary of that information is presented below. Vegetative Communities: The vegetative communities in the city include urban/developed, beach sand, and non-native/ornamental. Urban/developed land uses encompass the majority of the planning area. Urban/developed communities are classified as areas that have been heavily modified by humans, including roadways, existing buildings, and structures, as well as recreation fields, small parks, lawns, and other landscaped vegetation. Non-native/ornamental areas in the planning area include the Greenbelt, South Park, Valley Park, and a hillside west of the Marineland Mobilehome Park that runs northward through several residential parcels to 24th Street. These areas could be considered urban cover as they largely comprise non-native landscaped vegetation; however, CaIVEG classifies them as non- native/ornamental. For the purposes of the TBR, they are separate from the urban/developed cover type. The entire length of the coastline in the planning area is characterized by sandy beach habitat, the beach sand habitat referenced above. This habitat is typically found between the intertidal zone and areas where vegetation becomes established, often forming dunes. These communities are described below and shown in Figure 4.3-1 (Vegetative Communities). Table 4.3-1 (Acreages of Vegetative Communities within the Coastal and Inland Zones) summarizes the acreages of each vegetative community within the Coastal Zone and the inland portion of the city. Special -Status Plants: Based on the results of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database searches of sensitive natural resources, the presence of special -status plants is highly unlikely. This is due to the extirpation or high modification of natural habitats in Hermosa Beach. The open space areas are routinely landscaped and frequented by human traffic. The beach is extremely disturbed, and no vegetated dune habitat remains. Figure 4.3-2 (Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special - Status Species) illustrates the special -status plants with the potential to occur in the planning area. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLE 4.3-1 ACREAGES OF VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE COASTAL AND INLAND ZONES Zone Vegetative Community Area (acres) Coastal Urban/Developed 343 57 Beach Sand Non-Native/Ornamental 19 Total 419 Inland Urban/Developed 479 Non-Native/Ornamental 18 Total 497 Source: City of Hermosa Beach Special -Status Wildlife: Based on the database search results, two wildlife species have the potential to occur within the planning area. The California least tern (Sterna antillarum-bowni) is a federally endangered species and is state -listed as endangered. This species is a summer visitor that breeds along the Southern California coast from April to September. California least terns nest in colonies on beaches or islands cleared of vegetation (USFWS 2006). The nearest breeding colonies to the planning area are in Venice Beach and at the Port of Los Angeles (USFWS 2006). There are no records of this species nesting in the planning area; however, California least terns likely forage offshore. The western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) is a federally endangered species and a California species of special concern. Western snowy plover habitat is known to occur in Hermosa Beach. The habitat subunit stretches roughly 0.5 mile from 1 1 th Street southward to 1 st Street and totals approximately 27 acres. This subunit supports wintering flocks of snowy plover (USFWS 2012). Two special -status wildlife species (California least tern and western snowy plover) have the potential to occur in the beach habitats in the planning area, as shown in Table 4.3-3 (Special - Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Within and Surrounding the Planning Area) and Figure 4.3-2. Marine Wildlife: Offshore resources of Santa Monica Bay include a rich diversity of migratory and resident species of mammals, birds, fishes, and invertebrates. Common coastal seabirds found foraging near the shore of Hermosa Beach include western (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clark's grebes (A. clarkii), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), loons (Gavia spp.), California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), and gulls. Coastal birds are at their highest densities during the winter months. Mammal species found in the area include various cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), and sea otters. All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Beach Sand and Intertidal Zone: Sandy beach habitat is typically found between the intertidal zone, the area between the low tide and high tide marks, and the area where terrestrial vegetation cover is established. Sandy beach habitats can often form dunes, which are hills of sand constructed either through aeolian (wind) or alluvial (water) transport. The beach habitat is heavily used for recreation and primarily barren, except for man-made structures such as nearby lifeguard towers or volleyball courts. Occasionally kelp wrack collects on the beach, which is then removed by tractor. Beached kelp wrack can provide a food source for invertebrates and provides cover for numerous organisms that inhabit the sand of the intertidal zone. These organisms in turn act as a food source for, and attract, various species of shorebirds such as sanderling (Calidris alba), western sandpiper (Calidris maudi), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), and willet (Tringa semipalmata), as well as various species of gull (Larus spp.). The beach may also provide habitat for special -status species. The state and federally listed western snowy plover is PLAN Hermosa City of Hermosa Beach Final Environmental Impact Report August 2017 4.3-2 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES known to winter on the shores of the city, though nesting within the city has not been recorded since 1949. The nearest breeding colony to Hermosa Beach is located at Bolsa Chico in Orange County (City of Hermosa Beach 2015). The intertidal zone plays an important role in coastal ecology, and sand beaches are among the most extensive coastal habitats. Sand beaches and the organisms that utilize them are subjected to a wide variety of physical instability, causing this habitat to generally be less diverse than other environments, but the beaches provide foraging and breeding habitat for a variety of species including shorebirds. Organisms occupying intertidal sand beaches are usually limited by abiotic factors such as tidal height, exposure to wave action, and the composition of the sediment. Dominant species include amphipods (Synchelidium spp.), polychaete worms (Nerine cirratulus and Euzonus mucronata), and isopods (Excirolona chiltoni). Zonation patterns for intertidal sand beach assemblages are less distinct than rocky intertidal communities. Small beach hoppers (Orchestoidea sp.) and kelp flies (Coelopa vanduzeei) are abundant in clumps of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) cast up on the beach at the high tide line (City of Hermosa Beach 2015). Dominant fishes that use the intertidal zone include small active plankton feeders such as northern anchovy (Engroulis mordox) and topsmelt (Atherinops offinis), roving substrate feeders such as the barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus), and flatfishes such as juvenile California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). Other fishes that migrate through the surf zone include yellowfin croaker (Umbrino roncador) and spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnsii), and beach spawners such as California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) are also expected to occur (City of Hermosa Beach 2015). Sensitive Natural Communities: Two habitats (southern coastal bluff scrub and southern dune scrub) located in the planning area were identified in the CNDDB query as locally sensitive habitats. Southern coastal bluff scrub occurs south of the planning area along the bluffs of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Southern dune scrub occurs north of the planning area in the El Segundo dunes. Neither habitat is present in or located adjacent to the planning area. City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report FIGURE 4.3-1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 4.3-4 City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 0 09 1 1 1 Legend ' VM'J1k cfri�ws �CCYtiafKa lypa M - Plery City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES FIGURE 4.3-2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED OCCURRENCES OF SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES ..r •nra •W... Ma... J] r ��•a'+• + 'o' �. Ttir+e Y�� Uw pMly+1 ►I.a�-rraa.•xhaty ar-riNti Y.lY�/ fal ? as �� w•++ar 4.3-5 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report 7 M 1* W U O H W J laJ C7 O i O co M a, L u L) a, L a, L a, L a, L a L (1) L a, L a, L) a, L Y cu Y aJ Y Y Q) L a) Y a) -0 Y C C C C C C_ C_ C C a7+ C L a7+ c L 3- 3 a 3 3- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Y =- Y Y 2, Y Y Y :, Y Y Y Y C: a) C a) c c a) c c c a) c C ai c(U c v c v C a, v c a, ar v c v v c a) c a, an -.p a) an , ' a) fn of 'y fn an �.,, , an in in a_, ' an = a o :3 a o a a o a a a o a a o a o a of v -O an "O .- c in c _ -O c -O - c of V C: Y I6 c Y Y Y ro m Y Y I6 Y M Y C ro Y� ro Y ro �-= fo Y m Y ro Y Y_ mfo Y Y ro Y fa Y_ ` (UY -0 -0 Y -0 - IT La � Y Y V L N n3 L d L ru fo L �o L n3 L n, L L L N n3 L N fD L C (U Q, m a, Q) a, a)a)a, w au L > L > L L > L L L > L L> L> L ` fa c Y 5 m C Y 0 m Y M C Y fo m ra C fa M C t6 C fo ,O (A VI to •— to O C O C O .— O C V1 O IA O N O C O O C O C O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z..O�.m Z.. a o .. m Z) O .. . �. O = .. =.ra o .. Z) ..ro Z3 O ro o Z) u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u O -6 u O -6 u O u 0-0 u O u O u O -6 u O u O ->1 u O O O O fro O O O O O O O O O Ln Ln N N to Ln -O f0 -0 N 'O -O N -O rp "O fd - f6 aJ � tC (u � fo -0 rU a) -0 fC aJ CU Y a1 N Y W a) Y Wv Y W Y Q) v Y Y Y Y a) Y v Y u v u a, v v u v u v u v u v u a, u a) u w u a) 0_ Ol Q Ol O_ O1 0_ Q 01 O_ 0) 0_ 01 Q O_ 01 x Q x Q Ol x c x c c x c � x c v x c v x c v x c v x c a, x c c c a) c c a) vc E c � c c c c C c Y C Y C E Y C Y C O m O fo O mO r6 O O ra O m O O fa O fa O za Za z a — z Za za za z— Z a z— Za _c N O _ T ^ O o O Ln v rl 2 O fn ro u O O O_ O a) w > Q 7 t fO O > rn O m Ln u c L -0 wLi E O j^ 01 .... C U co V E 0 C E vi 0O 01 m Ln N E t6 Ln W a) L^ Y 0) vi a) iii C m m N to > m +L-� of O w U w �••- �m aU Q O O m C 7 '^ pl c O _� ro E O O n — N Ou M O O _ o Z o O °° :° Ln C E E� -0 fcc o -0 aa, coL" o m _ a o 1 y ° O `� o uQ o TE �, 1° ro N u OO u o � T —^ ro Ou E io -q E Ln O o O c v o r�o v OO u f° U Q > N -c � O a$o > N co O G f9 W -i O> L N ,j m o o � rn rP T t a "� ` vi C vvi O rn T C 00 N O M fD LnLncu u -o N E>❑ O O E u >O E —o rLv1N/1 7 L ao1E/f rn — O 0) = C L O v Vf i Y cn W to L r0 O O —^ v c= ru`o m° � ro o a, ° a>, E 0 .r c rO- O rya O 00 u t Q Y o -Fa C v w c w m Ln u urn E o v U N In E 0 ^ OO E O 0 Y "O O f0 OL! -IC 00 0 �-O 82 � o> Qo nrn L U L u�0 mmO N a LL Z N r+ 00 N N r I I N •� en N y� V m -4 w no m co m co m -1 w fn '� 3 V I LL I I I I I I I +, C I u LL L H L c a ❑ i O O d 0 E O �n L i N ± O u fn ra '^ i ❑ N .� -O O 'v a L U co D_ ❑ r6 '�- o u +. o N •U E H fo o M o❑ o� a, ❑ u v E E E a❑ v a rn o fca E o o a v ❑ c c ] ❑1 V E ❑1 •� u° L t a) O a aY c (a O a) LL (U.� C in L i w (a ❑ d Q- Y Q N H Q Y h Y o+ •V1 r0 •IVY+ •4. p N L O C o c 'Q .� fa 'C (V '6 f0 ❑ ro ;Z f�a• >Q > isQ fnQ aQ �,U ❑ Ou > uU vl InUv� E v v "I° t� v v s L L LEY LEL �_ C Y N Y Y LE LEY L L 3 3 a 3 3 3 3 Y 3 ++ N Y 3 a .3 Y c v c nr v c c v c a+ v c c v c v c v c v c c v c v Q v � N N N `7 j N N p S? a a o a a a a o a 0- -0 N ro ro -0 � � � � � _ � ate.. ..Q Y fO r6 ro m ro ro ro ro ro m ra Q N N N N _N 4J _N 41 N 41 L Z > W�_ ++ y ++ �..' Am-� gym-' +�+ }�i 7 7 N = •t C O Z O r- Z' N O Z O ClO Z Z O Z O Z O c 0 Z Z O Z O a �o o u u N o = > >> oN u u u u u u u u u O O .a O u O a O O O O -� O u O 0 C 0 N G y 0 0 N N v a 19 a a N N a f0 a ro a (o u u u m Y m Y Y a am a) a cri a) am a)v a a�''i 0-CD puj ro a U ro U ro aa� v ro cr x ._ x x ai �aa x ai c x x c x c x c x xai v O o O o O o O c O o c O Eac C 0 ! Ya cC cc O N 0Z Ya ccco Z Z a O Z a CL v rp C W N 0) E N +' O °° O Ol O > V �.o to N w O w m O m w N w a— vi E E rNI N w 0 O c N ro - - E E vi ro f0 O W ro N N 3 CO 0 C M � o i v ~ vui O C Q m N L C a a N T N w 01 O 7 v C _7 i N r6 E> Ln w w s E E a E ` r, a E O p E o + 3 o 3 N is ^ c Q v ro a� c CH vi a ro N Q 2 - v (U3 N o� a o� u E > u mo Y : N O V u N ro -a ro d m N rp ry N Ol N _0 O rC0 ++ Y c N N +' c o o ro a m ILIJ u a+ N 00 N O -0 Ll C ` C 3 O c� u m a N N c 3Cy t ro R O O° N L C > w N O a ro N O CC C M N O a l0 ° VI W N a r4 IY/1 m Y w m L N O O C �� �w N s� Nw sEa�� �Qa aCMam mE >� Y O Y N _ r� Jw v CU L, j u 7 ro Q L 'vi *' — O ° O 0 u o 6 0 °o O o .� ,e o [2 o o m N cu o a LL Z Vl u N m M CD ri 00 N O6 m m m m Q N ri r-i r-r N i I v7 wLL. I \ m I I I j u I i+ u LL LL LL H _a N Q N CL a , o +' 0 O Q m ro N .0 d1 O Cl N — a 3 0 -O i j C O L i N Ol O c c' ° v o a v o -0°' v .� rLo v ' v 'a N c '.. � o c o c a o v m c° o o of 6i a° o r>a o a _ O w u -, v N �! v Z 0- c Z u 0 m 0- m C p�N H M J m Q F- C C W N Y p aLO+ 3 3 c L c a 7 v 0 N L L L m L C ++ aci aci .3 .3 axi L 3 3 p ,7i, c mEn a a � C C C C C N n 131 Q Q N G N U vOi v�i Y> O a) c) O m Q a �0Ln d Y mm Y c 9 -0 6) m Y Y LL 4- 6 m m 00 p0 L -0 O 0- a-v? 2 L L 9 O 1 ` m C m C p ` m (6 +' m a) •tn W N a) +�+ 1n +�+ V •7 7 7 m +_' 7 aJ 3 V N C C •� 'Vt > > O N Vf N O ° O N O O _00 Z m z Z Z C Z Z a) �Z a) .. .. Y0) ..0 m j 7 Q0 U Op V V V V V u V V p_ ° a) O O Vm O m o o v o o v o m 0 0 o a o V .c o y ° c u ! m•E m.E vmm -0vm m a) a) = (3) Um ai -0 .3 ° 00 ' Qc Qc Q 0- G) Q p C a)> p_c x o > n m C 0 L x m a) - x m a) a x .0 X •C aL.� a) c v c E X a) N X ° c ._ ° cm 3 E °c -2 o v z Y o v z o m o m o z- z a— o v z a o za o m z a a` �ex� r y C N O1 vi is O -° T +} aJ m 'a Cm O a>l vCi iv CD m o uNi v 7 c �' p °oi (n a o c p V a aa, a) o m L (ro 0 C A m t aa)i ro ° 0) a) E v -� -c �O c " -a a W v O ` a N 2 N O a 2 n E c i r N m N E c 0 9 N O O - Y O V Q T i1S � O L Y Q N a1 +_ v a) N LVOi 0 -O p O 30 y ate+ to m N � a aci rn 3" E 0 p 0 o v m E c '� ° LL 3 - 2 a` is E `o ^ > Y a) °u c -0m o c VO c m 3 o c❑ m 5 m a) c y Q ° Y 9 `� al 7 a) > m L V V( N L Q dl C - O m i m � 7 ❑ L.L In C]) Ol U c m •0 L C of m> V E C m u O rn m� O +m+ °7 o .O °1 mE La)Y ar UZ,O p c _0 o> 2 _° 2w -0 o 'C t� NQA a Y a)CN a E o> 'v, ca a Q ° a a m 3 c °' t> o a7 a) a) v, La) mt" > N L `1 N f`O 7 (n v Q Y �' Y 9 m N u _0 v> °° t n ° m E N 3 m v v .E a m m m 7 a) 76 ry c E m m V) o Q❑ Q a) c p N o a a° v@ aj a Y c v ai c N °) 3 0 ,a; v a C 0 Q Crrn O C 9 S > .� W E rn a) O a Y W 3 3 7 a L a c 7 0 E o- n Ui N L._ o p c 0 v c O > Q n ; c0 y c n Y ° E 7 c o W a o m a Y- o a s u > E ` V� o ar o am) ° o m L a- " m o :° a E v Q L o aT, p N o - �v a) ro v 7 .g ^ v E Q- L io m ul L c --"e c0 �) II t > u) 'C Ol v v n p L .+� _. j O 7 ° ` in p •- v c c a) vpi m m Y 9. m 7 - v CYm, 3 '� ° ° C m 0 Z> Z Q O ppE 7 c ,C > E7 a) 0 �j a) ,j LL V) > Y V� V+ m L N E O ❑ j] Z (O 9 V Vf CO ■ } LL Ou U Ul Ln N V V) « mqn n L~L LL LL LL r N Ln Ln T LL LL ^ �L L a u Z+ J a o =a= p C 0- Q° U ° a a +. E a, a V a Gul (D •N O Q O = IL U, d a ,c am c o v a) a a c d m " oa s a °° v ° �°° V a °c g= m 3 m ° l7 Q (o o V CC d O t w W m + Q 3 V a 'LA.�+ > m V) m w W d V W M d 3 O w c d 0 a N M H d 'U d a H 3 3 3 .3 ax 3 Y'E 3 3 v.E v C a v N a d N C 61 U a a) C v ° .c Q d ' 4 v-0 v a OL v a�N a`N) G Q N c ° `_^ N '_^ ° N a a _� o olo a -5 Z T v _ L L -c t L aY�.i v y L p L N V •_ L a v � a, 9 v � c c 0 v Q. _ rya _c O m .f0 N_ ,,, Oy N N Q p Z O N O ❑1 O U O N 0 o O N 0,- p ° N= W Z z v fa z a) a) ,� c = nl Z o Z z 3 � C _ �+ L9 j N = C 0 0 C V Vp V U N VO a7 V V V O SS V V V C Op U O OV O O 0) O U O -o Ef Y 0 o) v! O O �6 O .0 O •� N C' O O v O z w Vl V a] V N V N Q vN U m O v (0, v C N V N �m v m C a`�i U v) °�D Q X .0 Qo X Qm0 Y a rn 0- C 0 V a) Q v,= Q C aa) Q o) 01 a) C C O .0 N C C O _C N C E a) C C O N v V aJ C >, 3 a 'C C CU Q X .0 ' a) E a) C m z— ro z a O r`o p z a_ O fv z a fo w o 2�z>zp zpL p fo u O VI Vi Y OL { i T -❑ C Y 'i N 0 oj = z aru -Fo Ln E N N N w '0 N .� L C L Q v N m 2� a) Y •Y OV = ❑1 ❑O .� L ° yj '❑ O V o0 L E p I v c v o v E u .3 N > E V d E o ° aL.+ c a) N L i O w Q_ 2 b -Q cm c a) _° > i ip 6 O O u O L a N N N E fO L 0 V 2 C N a) O � c r4 al C a V N m a • E 3 a) m— 0> vi N N 0 L j Q E '> Y m O w N 'C r` a) N a) Y Y N N 9 tNa p > Y N C m .2 3 m > c o v u N oicn0 u 3 -z u_ o c o° rn ry -o c c E o E c a N o E ° E c is d Q c fo Y p j `° 0) O v L H Ln i y E L N ❑ V E 0 a) N _o to 0 7 V Q C) C U m E H '� N LL u lY.) N ra N L ' ate+ c m 'C �^ fa w0 c -° .X_. Q= O N .0 N N Y 9 iJ N? �9 O L rCo L O m k2 ate+ ro �' ❑ '^ r° W >— 2` c 'p c E E V Vl E O C �a L 00 = N u 0 '� O0 9 C O Y -o a) Ol N ai s c� N c` N U c a ° `o Y n o f c o - E -o o a) a 2 c c 0 o a v ° ° -oo L 3 o m 2 N ,`a N vi 21 Q o a`Ni _° C Q U d m >O uO c io O O v-1 .. F. '^ c c j C O m ° C N o c V 7 `0 ❑) ai a) N c ❑) � V E° .c c N N m (a -O - �a S_ .0 'O N c o Y m'- m O y c o - `o �w o c `m Q2 o o-o n) c d E �° 0 p -o i Q 0� v E a �_ E o O N o 3 c p N E L6 m a Y v a c � a v) — c M a- 0) a) wp Z N m a p 6 —a�i ° o +° m m w —° c -o v ° _ , 3 f0 V V " 2 N VI N 11 a) N °) '� °) ° Q C C a) N �' 3> 0 'a cn o Q? UO � 2 3 O E Q 3 n o N E w ar a) p m w N v) w N w w \ v) u v) F v) N v v) LL v) F LL W LL W W LL LL v) � \ W LL L A LA �.4 ` �1.CP W (u -0 I-rrz, E Q 'C 0 `o o„ L O a Ec_ Qj LL N v'0Nu° O � - v }:� O v C N • NacQ°cam C O 2wm O v v v a O O O ❑) O ++ E m N ro �' y m `O Nw u� u �a —c u�%, �S 5w as °a Y V UQ 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to biological resources, including special -status species and habitat, in the planning area. They provide the regulatory framework to address all aspects of biological resources that would be affected by implementation of PLAN Hermosa. The regulatory setting for biological resources is discussed in detail in Appendix C-6. FEDERAL Endangered Species Act: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, provides protective measures for federally listed threatened and endangered species, including their habitats, from unlawful take (16 United States Code [USC] Sections 1531- 1544). The ESA defines "take" to mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Title 50, Part 222, of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR Section 222) further defines "harm" to include "an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such acts may include habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including feeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering." Clean Water Act: The basis of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was established in 1948; however, it was referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The act was reorganized and expanded in 1972 (33 USC Section 1251), and at this time the Clean Water Act became the act's commonly used name. The basis of the CWA is the regulation of pollutant discharges into waters of the United States, as well as the establishment of surface water quality standards. Migratory Bird TreatyAct: Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC Sections 703-71 1). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Section 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR Section 21). The majority of birds found in the vicinity of Hermosa Beach would be protected under the MBTA. • Marine Mammal Protection Act: Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Secretary of Commerce delegated the authority to protect all cetaceans and pinnipeds to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Secretary of the interior is responsible for protecting sea otters and delegated this authority to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The act established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals in waters under US jurisdiction. Under the act, "taking" includes hunting, capturing, and killing and attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. "Harassment" is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential -to -injure a -marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. • Coastal Zone Management Act: In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, all federal activities must be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of each affected state's Coastal Zone Management program. The programs set forth policies and standards regarding public and private use of land and water in the Coastal Zone. STATE California Endangered Species Act: The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species if reasonable and prudent City of Hermosa Beach August 2017 4.3 -10 PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report